On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
True - but not the one you were thinking of. There exists on Wikipedia a small group of people who will reflexively revert any removal of any link to external harassment, shouting "ZOMG! BADSITES!" and calling the world to come and look.
Part of the problem, Guy, is that when you say "link to external harassment" you stretch things considerably. There is no meaningful sense in which a citation sitting innocently in an article is transformed into such a link just because someone puts up some content elsewhere on the site to which someone on Wikipedia takes offense. Other links are perhaps not so innocent, but the work needed to dig them up really takes the sting out of them.
For the victims of offsite harassment, this is a really bad atmosphere. They have only two choices at present: leave harassment in place, or have it shouted from the rooftops.
It's also an overstatement to claim that whatever mutterings go on at WR are harassment, even if word of them leaks out to Wikipedia. Indeed, BADSITES in practice has itself served as the vehicle for harassment. That was certainly the way the TNH episode progressed: she was badgered into erasing the comment to which Will Beback took offense by holding links to her site hostage. The rub is that the offensive comment was pretty difficult to find, even if you knew it that it was there. The only way that I found out was because WBb waved the BADSITES flag in erasing the links, and even then it took some effort to find. Of course, if he hadn't said anything, the erasures would have been quickly reverted; but since he did, everyone knew to look.
In all of these episodes I have yet to see a single link that was created for the purpose of harassment. I have seen a fair number of user page links with no explanation of what is at the other end, and plenty of otherwise innocent links which ran afoul of someone's animus against some content on the site. I'm sure it happened in the past, but now it's the erasures that are the harassment.
As for shouting from the rooftops: it matters which roof. WIkipedia is a far more effective amplifier of abuse than a comment buried in a blog or even a diatribe on WR.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:08:38 -0500, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
True - but not the one you were thinking of. There exists on Wikipedia a small group of people who will reflexively revert any removal of any link to external harassment, shouting "ZOMG! BADSITES!" and calling the world to come and look.
Part of the problem, Guy, is that when you say "link to external harassment" you stretch things considerably. There is no meaningful sense in which a citation sitting innocently in an article is transformed into such a link just because someone puts up some content elsewhere on the site to which someone on Wikipedia takes offense. Other links are perhaps not so innocent, but the work needed to dig them up really takes the sting out of them.
That applies, as far as I can tell, to slightly fewer than half a dozen articles, and in every case editorial common sense rapidly prevailed.
How about the 180 or so links to Wikipedia Review scattered around the project? None of them in main space.
Indeed, one wonders why in two separate arbitration cases the committee have found it necessary to underscore the fact that linking to external harassment is unacceptable.
For the victims of offsite harassment, this is a really bad atmosphere. They have only two choices at present: leave harassment in place, or have it shouted from the rooftops.
It's also an overstatement to claim that whatever mutterings go on at WR are harassment, even if word of them leaks out to Wikipedia.
I don't recall claiming that. I do recall stating that in my view it is currently a cesspit, and I stand by that. Any thread on WR has the potential to go downhill fast.
Simple solution: don't link to sites that are substantially composed of harassment and attacks.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Simple solution: don't link to sites that are substantially composed of harassment and attacks.
It's such a good solution when that's the only place one can find the information one needs to link to. I've finally read a few threads on the Wikipedia Review forum as a result of this Durova mess and mixed in with the namecalling and ranting is some amount of useful information, I can easily see this being a resource used in discussions on-wiki without any attack being intended by its use.
On 28/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Indeed, one wonders why in two separate arbitration cases the committee have found it necessary to underscore the fact that linking to external harassment is unacceptable.
You wonder that, do you?
Do you also wonder about the number of times ArbCom has "found it necessary to underscore" that users should assume good faith, or that Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia, or that Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion? I could go on, and on, and on.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:08:38 -0500, "The Mangoe" wrote
Part of the problem, Guy, is that when you say "link to external harassment" you stretch things considerably. There is no meaningful sense in which a citation sitting innocently in an article is transformed into such a link just because someone puts up some content elsewhere on the site to which someone on Wikipedia takes offense. Other links are perhaps not so innocent, but the work needed to dig them up really takes the sting out of them.
That applies, as far as I can tell, to slightly fewer than half a dozen articles, and in every case editorial common sense rapidly prevailed.
How about the 180 or so links to Wikipedia Review scattered around the project? None of them in main space.
That seems to be in proportion to the amount of fuss over the site. Without the drama I'm sure there would be fewer such links.
Indeed, one wonders why in two separate arbitration cases the committee have found it necessary to underscore the fact that linking to external harassment is unacceptable
It's also an overstatement to claim that whatever mutterings go on at WR are harassment, even if word of them leaks out to Wikipedia.
I don't recall claiming that. I do recall stating that in my view it is currently a cesspit, and I stand by that. Any thread on WR has the potential to go downhill fast.
I agree that the potential is there, but it's dangerous to block solely on the basis of idle speculation.
Simple solution: don't link to sites that are substantially composed of harassment and attacks.
The intelligent people are able to distinguish between linking to harassment and linking to a site.
Ec
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:03:20 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That seems to be in proportion to the amount of fuss over the site. Without the drama I'm sure there would be fewer such links.
With fewer such links there would be less drama.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 28, 2007 6:19 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:03:20 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That seems to be in proportion to the amount of fuss over the site. Without the drama I'm sure there would be fewer such links.
With fewer such links there would be less drama.
Guy (JzG)
Happynet would solve this problem. We could just ban all links to megabozo.* class sites.
Except that, based on our internal politics, I think we'd be one. Which would make the internal links a bit problematic.
What the heck. This Web 2.0 stuff is overhyped anyways.
On 11/28/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
That applies, as far as I can tell, to slightly fewer than half a dozen articles, and in every case editorial common sense rapidly prevailed.
Yes, but it would have been better not to go through it in the first place.