-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker
- d.
Very interesting indeed! Could see this becoming quite a useful tool.
- -- Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com cannon.danielc@gmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker
I should also note that I blocked the IP from Diebold that is mentioned in the article. Better to play that on the safe side :) Let me know if there's any controversy about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.151.249.23
- -- Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com cannon.danielc@gmail.com
On 16/08/07, Daniel Cannon cannon.danielc@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker
I should also note that I blocked the IP from Diebold that is mentioned in the article. Better to play that on the safe side :) Let me know if there's any controversy about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.151.249.23
I wouldn't bother with a block myself. They haven't edited as the IP in a while, so there's probably no imminent danger ... and you can bet people will be watching like hawks.
We may need to start stressing that we have no problem with people editing from the CIA, DIebold or the DNC ... what is problematic is a conflict of interest. A Diebold IP editing well is most welcome; a CIA IP fixing up Buffy The Vampire Slayer is fine.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
I wouldn't bother with a block myself. They haven't edited as the IP in a while, so there's probably no imminent danger ... and you can bet people will be watching like hawks.
We may need to start stressing that we have no problem with people editing from the CIA, DIebold or the DNC ... what is problematic is a conflict of interest. A Diebold IP editing well is most welcome; a CIA IP fixing up Buffy The Vampire Slayer is fine.
Most definitely. The concern with Diebold is that they were editing in a manner that showed an obvious conflict of interest. While a block isn't really going to do anything to stop this in the future--the IP has been inactive for months, and after all of this, Diebold will probably block all its employees from Wikipedia--yet it gives the impression that we're doing something about it :) As you said, they'll be watching like hawks--and it's our credibility, moreso than Diebold's reputation, that is on the line (at least from where I'm sitting). A block shows that we are watching out for our 'pedia and that we don't condone such actions taken by corporations. (You've gotta keep in mind that a lot of people in the press haven't wrapped their head around this whole anybody-can-edit mentality, and assume that if Diebold is editing articles about itself, it's because we explicitly allowed them to do so.)
- -- Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com cannon.danielc@gmail.com
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 04:37 -0600, Daniel Cannon wrote:
Most definitely. The concern with Diebold is that they were editing in a manner that showed an obvious conflict of interest. While a block isn't really going to do anything to stop this in the future--the IP has been inactive for months, and after all of this, Diebold will probably block all its employees from Wikipedia--yet it gives the impression that we're doing something about it :) As you said, they'll be watching like
*snip*
I was under the impression that blocks are preventative, not punitive.
On 8/16/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 04:37 -0600, Daniel Cannon wrote:
Most definitely. The concern with Diebold is that they were editing in a manner that showed an obvious conflict of interest. While a block isn't really going to do anything to stop this in the future--the IP has been inactive for months, and after all of this, Diebold will probably block all its employees from Wikipedia--yet it gives the impression that we're doing something about it :) As you said, they'll be watching like
*snip*
I was under the impression that blocks are preventative, not punitive.
Depends on the recipient. In the case of Diebold, I think most Wikipedians are willing to look the other way.
On 8/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/16/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 04:37 -0600, Daniel Cannon wrote:
Most definitely. The concern with Diebold is that they were editing in a manner that showed an obvious conflict of interest. While a block isn't really going to do anything to stop this in the future--the IP has been inactive for months, and after all of this, Diebold will probably block all its employees from Wikipedia--yet it gives the impression that we're doing something about it :) As you said, they'll be watching like
*snip*
I was under the impression that blocks are preventative, not punitive.
Depends on the recipient. In the case of Diebold, I think most Wikipedians are willing to look the other way.
While I don't trust the company's voting machines as far as I can throw them, it's really good policy to treat those we dislike in a consistent and polite manner, per our longstanding policies.
I would recommend unblock, unless there's more abuse.
On 8/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/16/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 04:37 -0600, Daniel Cannon wrote:
Most definitely. The concern with Diebold is that they were editing in a manner that showed an obvious conflict of interest. While a block isn't really going to do anything to stop this in the future--the IP has been inactive for months, and after all of this, Diebold will probably block all its employees from Wikipedia--yet it gives the impression that we're doing something about it :) As you said, they'll be watching like
*snip*
I was under the impression that blocks are preventative, not punitive.
Depends on the recipient. In the case of Diebold, I think most Wikipedians are willing to look the other way.
While I don't trust the company's voting machines as far as I can throw them, it's really good policy to treat those we dislike in a consistent and polite manner, per our longstanding policies.
I would recommend unblock, unless there's more abuse.
I've continued to review. Daniel, my opinion is that if they appealed this to unblock-en-l or the OTRS unblock queue they would speedily be unblocked by one of us.
Unless someone else thinks otherwise, I strongly urge unblocking them 8-)
George Herbert wrote:
On 8/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/16/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 04:37 -0600, Daniel Cannon wrote:
Most definitely. The concern with Diebold is that they were editing in a manner that showed an obvious conflict of interest. While a block isn't really going to do anything to stop this in the future--the IP has been inactive for months, and after all of this, Diebold will probably block all its employees from Wikipedia--yet it gives the impression that we're doing something about it :) As you said, they'll be watching like
*snip*
I was under the impression that blocks are preventative, not punitive.
Depends on the recipient. In the case of Diebold, I think most Wikipedians are willing to look the other way.
While I don't trust the company's voting machines as far as I can throw them, it's really good policy to treat those we dislike in a consistent and polite manner, per our longstanding policies.
I would recommend unblock, unless there's more abuse.
I've continued to review. Daniel, my opinion is that if they appealed this to unblock-en-l or the OTRS unblock queue they would speedily be unblocked by one of us.
Unless someone else thinks otherwise, I strongly urge unblocking them 8-)
I, too, strongly urge unblocking them. It is not appropriate to block an ip number for some misbehavior months ago.
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:28 -0400, Anthony wrote:
Depends on the recipient. In the case of Diebold, I think most Wikipedians are willing to look the other way.
So we're now blocking people based upon our opinions of them?
On 8/16/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:28 -0400, Anthony wrote:
Depends on the recipient. In the case of Diebold, I think most Wikipedians are willing to look the other way.
So we're now blocking people based upon our opinions of them?
Depends on who the "we" is? Those who've been blocking people based upon their opinions of them have pretty much always been doing it.
On 8/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/16/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:28 -0400, Anthony wrote:
Depends on the recipient. In the case of Diebold, I think most Wikipedians are willing to look the other way.
So we're now blocking people based upon our opinions of them?
Depends on who the "we" is? Those who've been blocking people based upon their opinions of them have pretty much always been doing it.
By the way, my statement wasn't that Diebold was blocked because of who they are, it was that most Wikipedians generally are going to look the other way because of who they are.
'Course, now that the block has become so widely known, all bets are off.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Slowking Man wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:28 -0400, Anthony wrote:
Depends on the recipient. In the case of Diebold, I think most Wikipedians are willing to look the other way.
So we're now blocking people based upon our opinions of them?
I certainly hope you didn't interpret this blocking as stem from some personal aversion to Diebold -- I viewed it as a way of addressing legitimate concerns raised about the editing by this IP. I think what Anthony is stressing is that there are certain incidents where a punitive block, despite being a generally discouraged thing, will be tolerated by the community, not that there are certain people will simply dislike and therefore block.
In any case, there seems to be agreement here that the block should be lifted, and so I have done so; however, so far as I am concerned, it does not seem to be a big deal one way or the other.
- -- Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com cannon.danielc@gmail.com
On 8/17/07, Daniel Cannon cannon.danielc@gmail.com wrote:
Slowking Man wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:28 -0400, Anthony wrote:
Depends on the recipient. In the case of Diebold, I think most Wikipedians are willing to look the other way.
So we're now blocking people based upon our opinions of them?
I certainly hope you didn't interpret this blocking as stem from some personal aversion to Diebold -- I viewed it as a way of addressing legitimate concerns raised about the editing by this IP. I think what Anthony is stressing is that there are certain incidents where a punitive block, despite being a generally discouraged thing, will be tolerated by the community, not that there are certain people will simply dislike and therefore block.
In any case, there seems to be agreement here that the block should be lifted, and so I have done so; however, so far as I am concerned, it does not seem to be a big deal one way or the other.
If there is no wheel war about it, no matter how much hot air is blown, by definition it is not a big deal. :p
Johnleemk