-----Original Message----- From: joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu [mailto:joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 05:38 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
Quoting fredbaud@waterwiki.info:
-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 06:08 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to edit a Wikipedia user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any excess of ours. In a way, linking to it puts him in a false light, displaying petty bullying.
The NPOV violation here is that in the POV of some of us, harassing, maligning, or exposing Wikipedia editors is a bad thing. More specifically, it is seen as the one bad thing in all the world that might merit link removal. Other people do not share this POV.
Perhaps one could make an NPOV-friendly case for removing all links to all harassment, or maligning, or exposing of anonymous or pseudonymous people. It would be even more clearly consistent with NPOV to argue for a removal of all links to all living miscreants everywhere.
Needless to say, I don't think those are a good idea either. I think our job is to give people the facts as best we can, while leaving the moral judgments to our readers.
William
Yep, your stawmen are indeed straw. You know they are not genuine alternatives, just debating points. Fred
Fred, if there are strawmen above please explain what they are. I at least don't see any.
_______________________________________________
The statements you say are not good ideas. You are the only one suggesting them. No one is advancing them as serious proposals. You advance them as easy targets, straw men. I speak of
Perhaps one could make an NPOV-friendly case for removing all links to all harassment, or maligning, or exposing of anonymous or pseudonymous people. It would be even more clearly consistent with NPOV to argue for a removal of all links to all living miscreants everywhere.
Fred
Quoting fredbaud@waterwiki.info:
-----Original Message----- From: joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu [mailto:joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 05:38 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
Quoting fredbaud@waterwiki.info:
-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 06:08 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to edit a Wikipedia user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any excess of ours. In a way, linking to it puts him in a false light, displaying petty bullying.
The NPOV violation here is that in the POV of some of us, harassing, maligning, or exposing Wikipedia editors is a bad thing. More specifically, it is seen as the one bad thing in all the world that might merit link removal. Other people do not share this POV.
Perhaps one could make an NPOV-friendly case for removing all links to all harassment, or maligning, or exposing of anonymous or pseudonymous people. It would be even more clearly consistent with NPOV to argue for a removal of all links to all living miscreants everywhere.
Needless to say, I don't think those are a good idea either. I think our job is to give people the facts as best we can, while leaving the moral judgments to our readers.
William
Yep, your stawmen are indeed straw. You know they are not genuine alternatives, just debating points. Fred
Fred, if there are strawmen above please explain what they are. I at least don't see any.
The statements you say are not good ideas. You are the only one suggesting them. No one is advancing them as serious proposals. You advance them as easy targets, straw men. I speak of
Perhaps one could make an NPOV-friendly case for removing all links to all harassment, or maligning, or exposing of anonymous or pseudonymous people. It would be even more clearly consistent with NPOV to argue for a removal of all links to all living miscreants everywhere.
Fred
That appears to be not a strawman, since he isn't asserting that anyone is making that argument. If he has said "Fred says one should remove all links that are harassment etc." that would be a strawman. What he is doing here is presenting a hypothetical that would be consistent with NPOV. That's an important distinction.
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu [mailto:joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu]
[...] Fred, if there are strawmen above please explain what they are. I at least don't see any.
The statements you say are not good ideas. You are the only one suggesting them. No one is advancing them as serious proposals. You advance them as easy targets, straw men. I speak of
Perhaps one could make an NPOV-friendly case for removing all links to all harassment, or maligning, or exposing of anonymous or pseudonymous people. It would be even more clearly consistent with NPOV to argue for a removal of all links to all living miscreants everywhere.
Fred
Fred, you're replying to Joshua but are quoting my words back at him, so I'm not sure who you're trying to address here. In case it's me, let me try to clear things up.
I deny again your suggestion that I'm throwing out straw men. I say again because already explained once here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083748.html
And further addressed your mistaken accusation of bad faith here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083839.html
Perhaps you missed these in the recent flood of mail. Regardless, let me know if I can be of further help.
Thanks