Phil Sandifer wrote:
May I ask what communities these are? Particularly the one with hundreds of thousands of members.
It seems that Skyring has ignored the opportunity to back up his vague claims with specific evidence. However, judging from his user page, it appears that the two communities he's alluding to are LiveJournal and BookCrossing.
Anyway, I'd like to take an opportunity to see how the "competition" compares, and whether other large, open online communities really are more "polite and productive" as he claims. First of all, I don't see any reason to say that the atmosphere at LiveJournal is any better than on Wikipedia. As with Slashdot and Kuro5hin, two of the other leading candidates, LiveJournal has its own well-documented social issues, of which you can get the first inkling by reading our articles about them. I don't mean to bash any of these sites - as with Wikipedia, if you're not looking to get involved in contentious areas, you probably won't be - but they have their own problems, along with their own ways of combating them. They may not be worse than Wikipedia in this regard, but I wouldn't agree that they're any better, either.
BookCrossing may have a comparable number of members to Wikipedia, but its character is too different for a sensible comparison. I mean, who's going to force you to pick up a book you're not interested in? I don't see how the community brings out the kind of passion that produces the disruptions we experience.
I might consider Skyring's argument more plausible if made about some other communities, including possibly craigslist and Flickr (notably, unlike the previous examples, their Wikipedia articles fail to mention whatever critics they may have). With Flickr, you don't have to reveal anything you don't want to reveal, go anywhere you don't want to go, or deal with people you choose not to deal with. While collaboration and community dynamics do exist, the site is not organized in a way that fundamentally requires it. And still, as their FAQ reveals, where they do have community groups and channels (similar to IRC), they have the same problems with disruptive behavior and deal with them in the same way.
That leaves craigslist, in my opinion, as the one realistic candidate for a more "polite and productive" community on a scale similar to Wikipedia. If someone knows more about the seamy side of craigslist than I do, feel free to enlighten me to the contrary. Presumably their forums can occasionally breed bad behavior, as with all such creatures, but I know of little else. It's also interesting to note that craigslist happens to be the only one of these sites we have not yet overtaken in terms of traffic. Perhaps we should take more interest in figuring out what lessons we can pick up from their experience.
--Michael Snow
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Michael Snow wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
May I ask what communities these are? Particularly the one with hundreds of thousands of members.
[snip]
That leaves craigslist, in my opinion, as the one realistic candidate for a more "polite and productive" community on a scale similar to Wikipedia. If someone knows more about the seamy side of craigslist than I do, feel free to enlighten me to the contrary. Presumably their forums can occasionally breed bad behavior, as with all such creatures, but I know of little else. It's also interesting to note that craigslist happens to be the only one of these sites we have not yet overtaken in terms of traffic. Perhaps we should take more interest in figuring out what lessons we can pick up from their experience.
Check out the "Rants & Raves" section. I can't speak for any other local version of Craigslist, but at portland.craigslist.com there have been a number of flame wars that make any exchange on EN-wikipedia look not only polite but extremely intellectual. (Currently, amongst the usual posts bashing gays, fat women, national corporations, & city government, there is a dispute over pornography that makes no sense & I have no desire to get to the bottom of -- but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to their contributions, thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
I honestly doubt any community is entirely "polite & productive". To paraphrase the late Douglas Adams, the problem with people is people.
On the other hand, I do find the classifieds on Craigslist quite useful -- which I consider is Craiglist's most important feature. Does this mean that we should consider Wikiclassifieds? (The ability to edit other people's personal ads offers the potential for continuous and immeasurable entertainment, although it might not be worth the resulting trouble.)
Geoff
Geoff Burling said:
but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to their contributions, thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
On 6/1/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
With respect, Tony: what could be said about this THIS time that wasn't said last time? It'd be flogging a dead horse on all sides.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Matt Brown said:
On 6/1/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
With respect, Tony: what could be said about this THIS time that wasn't said last time? It'd be flogging a dead horse on all sides.
Quite.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Geoff Burling said:
but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to their contributions, thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
You know full well, it's been exhaustively explained multiple times.
Stan
Stan Shebs said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Geoff Burling said:
but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to their contributions, thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
You know full well, it's been exhaustively explained multiple times.
Not really. To me, it's one of those odd concepts that crop up now and then but never seem to be adequately explained. Clearly we're not talking about some kind of high explosive or even something that can cause software to malfunction. Suppose you put something onto a website, how could you know it was workplace unsafe? Which particular workplace? How can you know?
Stan Shebs stated for the record:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Geoff Burling said:
but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to their contributions, thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
You know full well, it's been exhaustively explained multiple times.
It even has its own Wikipedia article.
Sean Barrett said:
Stan Shebs stated for the record:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Geoff Burling said:
but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to their contributions, thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
You know full well, it's been exhaustively explained multiple times.
It even has its own Wikipedia article.
Thank you.
I must say I find the idea that workplace rules should extend outside the workplace in this way, applying to people who don't even work there, very, very puzzling. If these rules are really so important, why do people insist on risking breaching them by visiting internet sites that have terms of use, like the following one applying to craiglist: "You understand that craigslist does not control, and is not responsible for Content made available through the Service, and that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent, inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise objectionable."
Tony Sidaway wrote
I must say I find the idea that workplace rules should extend outside the workplace in this way, applying to people who don't even work there, very, very puzzling.
Tony - this is off-off-topic and AFAIK no one is going to have their views changed by your further pursuit of the matter in this thread.
Charles
Charles Matthews said:
Tony Sidaway wrote
I must say I find the idea that workplace rules should extend outside the workplace in this way, applying to people who don't even work there, very, very puzzling.
Tony - this is off-off-topic and AFAIK no one is going to have their views changed by your further pursuit of the matter in this thread.
Indeed. I've had my say. No more on this.
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Geoff Burling said:
but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to
their contributions,
thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this
context? Whose
workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a
photograph on a
website cause a completely unrelated workplace to
become unsafe?
You know full well, it's been exhaustively explained multiple times.
Stan
It's been *asserted* multiple times.
RickK
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
Geoff Burling said:
but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to their contributions, thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
Attention all: please do not feed the troll.
Sean Barrett said:
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
Geoff Burling said:
but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to their contributions, thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
Attention all: please do not feed the troll.
I'm sorry that you think it's a troll. Sean. I will not refrain from challenging this odd neologism when I see it used carelessly.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Geoff Burling said:
but is noteable because one side is attaching workplace unsafe pictures to their contributions, thus disrupting the forum to prove their point.)
What does workplace unsafe actually mean in this context? Whose workplace? Why unsafe? How can a person placing a photograph on a website cause a completely unrelated workplace to become unsafe?
This post challenges me in a way I haven't been challenged before: I can express three possible responses, but given the nature of these responses, I feel I am limited to only using one of them. Could someone help me decide which of these three responses should I use?
1. Tony, do you honestly not know what I meant by "workplace unsafe"? Are you, for some reason, unable to point your browser at http://portland.craigslist.com, find the link for "Rants & Raves", then examine the posts there to see what I might mean? The ones with pictures attached are all helpfully marked, so if this is a sinceely pressing question for you, I'd expect you to take a look & see what I meant.
And if you have no interest in doing your own research, what is your point for these questions?
FWIW, I picked this term "workplace unsafe" because I had only looked at two of the 20 or more posts with pictures on this topic. While both were images of part of an unclothed body, I didn't want to base my assumptions on such an unrepresentative sample & assume that none of the others were more appropriate for a web site named www.pregnantteeniesfuckedbygoats.com. And because I'm sure if I had merely written "pictures of unclothed people", someone would have found the few that were not simply unclothed people, & made the effort to misrepresent my point by accusing me of condoning pictures I might find offensive.
2. I was sincere in describing the exchanges here as intellectual as compared to what usually appears in "Rants & Raves". Even the concurrent exchange about "Rogue Admins" is polite, thoughtful, & restrained compared to the ones I've seen in that spot at Craig's List; over there, telling someone you disagree with "Fuck off and die" is better than half of the exchanges I've read in "Rants & Raves" -- & one reason I don't usually read it, despite the fact there are some very fine posts there (which fortunately make it to "Best of Craig's List").
However, if you want to be disruptive to make a point (something usually discouraged here at Wikipedia), & show that we can be just as nasty & offensive, please don't try to imitate examples of Gay bashing, complaints about fat women, national business chains, or local government. As the joke goes, a single feather can be a lot of fun; the whole chicken is just plain offensive.
3. I am reminded of a Zen Buddhist story, about a Master who has taken a vow of chastity, & his young disciple. One day, as they were travelling along, they came to a river, where a woman was standing, in provocative, yet expensive, clothes. She asked the Master if he would be so kind as to help her across the river; the Master agreed, and carried her across the river on his back. She thanked the Master, & they went their separate ways.
This incident troubled the young disciple: why did his master let a woman -- particularly one dressed as she had been -- touch him? Didn't that infringe on his vow of chastity? The disciple thought about about this for a long time, & at last asked his Master about the woman.
"I left her back at the river, & have gone on," the master replied calmly. "You appear to still be carrying her."
I recall you making a point about the phrase "workplace unsafe" quite eloquently in a discussion some time back, about how you didn't like the phrase & why. I have left that discussion & have gone on.
Geoff