Hi
While I was reading a protected article, I discovered at the bottom of the page the following disclaimer
This work may be protected by copyright. Please see 17 USC 108. This version of the article has been subsequently revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the GFDL.
----------------
I am *very* perplex. There are MANY reasons why an article can be protected on Wikipedia, and I would dare saying that having part of its content under copyright is probably the least probable reason for it to be restricted in edition. Protection is most of the time against vandalism or to cool down spirits. On the contrary, if an article contains factual inaccuracies or copyrighted material, it should be OPEN to editing so that it can be fixed as quickly as possible.
I perceive this disclaimer as possibly be meant to protect ourselves... but also as giving a very inacurate reason why we protect articles...
Second, WHY this reference to the US law code here?
Anthere
--------------------------------- Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
Which article?
UtherSRG
On 7/12/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi
While I was reading a protected article, I discovered at the bottom of the page the following disclaimer
This work may be protected by copyright. Please see 17 USC 108. This version of the article has been subsequently revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the GFDL.
I am *very* perplex. There are MANY reasons why an article can be protected on Wikipedia, and I would dare saying that having part of its content under copyright is probably the least probable reason for it to be restricted in edition. Protection is most of the time against vandalism or to cool down spirits. On the contrary, if an article contains factual inaccuracies or copyrighted material, it should be OPEN to editing so that it can be fixed as quickly as possible.
I perceive this disclaimer as possibly be meant to protect ourselves... but also as giving a very inacurate reason why we protect articles...
Second, WHY this reference to the US law code here?
Anthere
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/07/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi
While I was reading a protected article, I discovered at the bottom of the page the following disclaimer
This work may be protected by copyright. Please see 17 USC 108. This version of the article has been subsequently revised.
Anthere
You'll also find that at the bottom of old article revisions in Histories. I've never worked out why.
Dan
Hi :)
The protection referred to there is not Wikipedia's Page Protection mechanism, but the legal protection which copyrighted works are given in courts. You should see that message whenever you view an old revision of *any* page, protected or otherwise. That message is there in case an old version of an article is a copyvio, and it is subsequently reverted as a result. In such a situation, we do not automatically remove the old revisions from the database, and so the copyvio may live on in the page's history. This notice advises the reader to the risk of this.
If you weren't looking at an old version of the protected page when you came across this disclaimer, then you may have encountered a bug.
~Mark Ryan
On 7/12/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi
While I was reading a protected article, I discovered at the bottom of the page the following disclaimer
This work may be protected by copyright. Please see 17 USC 108. This version of the article has been subsequently revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the GFDL.
I am *very* perplex. There are MANY reasons why an article can be protected on Wikipedia, and I would dare saying that having part of its content under copyright is probably the least probable reason for it to be restricted in edition. Protection is most of the time against vandalism or to cool down spirits. On the contrary, if an article contains factual inaccuracies or copyrighted material, it should be OPEN to editing so that it can be fixed as quickly as possible.
I perceive this disclaimer as possibly be meant to protect ourselves... but also as giving a very inacurate reason why we protect articles...
Second, WHY this reference to the US law code here?
Anthere
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/07/05, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Hi :)
The protection referred to there is not Wikipedia's Page Protection mechanism, but the legal protection which copyrighted works are given in courts.
~Mark Ryan
What does USC 17 1 108 have to do with old revisions of articles?
Dan
On 7/12/05, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Hi :)
The protection referred to there is not Wikipedia's Page Protection mechanism, but the legal protection which copyrighted works are given in courts. You should see that message whenever you view an old revision of *any* page, protected or otherwise. That message is there in case an old version of an article is a copyvio, and it is subsequently reverted as a result. In such a situation, we do not automatically remove the old revisions from the database, and so the copyvio may live on in the page's history. This notice advises the reader to the risk of this.
If you weren't looking at an old version of the protected page when you came across this disclaimer, then you may have encountered a bug.
~Mark Ryan
Mark is absolutely right. All current revisions are generally presumed to be GFDL-compatible, however there is absolutely no guarantee that previous revisions are GFDL-compatible. There might be a case for including in the MediaWiki software a method for deleting individual revisions from an article's history when it is revealed that an edit incorporated copyvio content.
The reference to the US Code is there because the Wikipedia servers (or at least most of them - aren't there some in France now?) are physically located in Florida.
On 12/07/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
The reference to the US Code is there because the Wikipedia servers (or at least most of them - aren't there some in France now?) are physically located in Florida.
-- Stephen Bain
My point is - what has that bit of code got do with Wikipedia? Is that the bit "fair use" comes from?
Dan
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
(why did you reply to the 'disclaimer at the bottom of wikipedia pages' thread?)
Who is this user who has made this statement? The only reason, I can see, for someone to make reverts to every edit a person makes is if that person is hard-banned. I'm guessing (maybe hoping) that the person who said this is just in a bad mood.
Chris
P.S. I also know nothing about LaRouche.
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
I accidentally replied only to Chris previously, a fact he has kindly and gently pointed out to me. In view of recent developments, I'm posting it to the list.
On 7/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
(why did you reply to the 'disclaimer at the bottom of wikipedia pages' thread?)
Because I'm using GMail, which threads messages based on subject line. For me to start a new thread on a new topic, the easiest way to do so is to reply to an existing message and change the subject line. My apologies if this has confused you (or anyone else). I might be a bit less lazy in future!
Who is this user who has made this statement? The only reason, I can see, for someone to make reverts to every edit a person makes is if that person is hard-banned. I'm guessing (maybe hoping) that the person who said this is just in a bad mood.
He's ALWAYS in a bad mood. He's threatening (and making) reverts to the edits of any editor in good standing whom he considers to be a member of a particular group, whether they edit on controversial subjects or articles or not. Fix a spelling mistake and this editor will revert the edit.
My take is that he's not serious, but rather is making a plea for attention and wants to be talked out of his threat. It's the sort of thing a teenager would say before a failed suicide attempt.
Whether or not he means what he says, this sort of thing is pretty disturbing. Is announcing with pride the number of your edits the immediate precursor to a breakdown?
There's a link to the page here: http://tinyurl.com/cgpbc
I happen to share the view that the LaRouche people are a cult and a pretty bonkers in general (I would behoove anyone who thinks LaRouche is a good idea to go through the stuff he wrote in the 1970s in New Solidarity before proclaiming him likely sane), but that's not the point, of course -- Draconian is Draconian, and is not Wikipedian.
But as you said, "Surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor", which seems to apply to this fellow and his rather extreme notice as well. While this message isn't very civil (if you applied it to other political groups or religious groups, it would be seen as quite offensive), and might be in violation of some sort of "don't use your user page to be a jerk" rule, I don't think it by itself is much of a threat to the project.
FF
On 7/12/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Note: For some reason, often when I mean to write "encourage," I write "behoove" instead. I'm not sure why this is, but it has happened a number of times. So please, read it as "encourage". Theoretically I'm aware that "behoove" does not mean the same thing, though I seem to screw it up quite often in practice!
FF
On 7/12/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I happen to share the view that the LaRouche people are a cult and a pretty bonkers in general (I would behoove anyone who thinks LaRouche is a good idea to go through the stuff he wrote in the 1970s in New Solidarity before proclaiming him likely sane), but that's not the point, of course -- Draconian is Draconian, and is not Wikipedian.
But as you said, "Surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor", which seems to apply to this fellow and his rather extreme notice as well. While this message isn't very civil (if you applied it to other political groups or religious groups, it would be seen as quite offensive), and might be in violation of some sort of "don't use your user page to be a jerk" rule, I don't think it by itself is much of a threat to the project.
FF
On 7/13/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Note: For some reason, often when I mean to write "encourage," I write "behoove" instead. I'm not sure why this is, but it has happened a number of times. So please, read it as "encourage". Theoretically I'm aware that "behoove" does not mean the same thing, though I seem to screw it up quite often in practice!
Behoove is such a great word. Just to have the phrase "it ill behooves us to offer feedback following meals" roll merrily off the tongue, oooh, it gives me a thrill.
Phil has used this particular case in his Wikimediation page, and it should be a good test to see if an apparently insoluble problem works out.
As for LaRouche, it sounds like one of those nutty cult things that don't add up. Like Christianity, I guess.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 7/12/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
As for LaRouche, it sounds like one of those nutty cult things that don't add up. Like Christianity, I guess.
I find it odd that atheists, while supposedly the "rational" ones, feel the need to employ invective against people who disagree with them whenever possible. But I'm just a redneck, bucktoothed Jesuslander. What do I know?
- --Slowking Man
Thats why I don't believe in atheism. IMO there are agnostics, and then their are people who are angry at God. I think this is off topic tho ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/13/05, Christopher Larberg christopherlarberg@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 7/12/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
As for LaRouche, it sounds like one of those nutty cult things that don't add up. Like Christianity, I guess.
I find it odd that atheists, while supposedly the "rational" ones, feel the need to employ invective against people who disagree with them whenever possible. But I'm just a redneck, bucktoothed Jesuslander. What do I know?
- --Slowking Man
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC1G+VCYNOh7qrRhoRAlfxAJwOvFA1WF8HwF7RmHc6SKVKuBYcmwCgmlQ2 YjgbmD6VmP//vUw+IO3U01s= =w4Cn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/13/05, Christopher Larberg christopherlarberg@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 7/12/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
As for LaRouche, it sounds like one of those nutty cult things that don't add up. Like Christianity, I guess.
I find it odd that atheists, while supposedly the "rational" ones, feel the need to employ invective against people who disagree with them whenever possible. But I'm just a redneck, bucktoothed Jesuslander. What do I know?
If those comments were aimed at me, I'm not an atheist and I don't "feel a need" to employ invective against those who disagree with me. Toleration and moderation in all things.
But Christianity is indeed a cult and the purpose of my remarks was to contrast the size and public acceptance of the two extremes.
Seems to me that the right way for LaRouche folk to gain more ground in WP is to gain more ground in the general community. As Christianity itself has done from small and tenuous origins.
Not that I'm advocating this, mind!
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not in their favor.
And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered that editor might be.
Geoff
The exact standing of that arbcom ruling is in some doubt - mostly because it did kind of consist of the arbcom making a content ruling of the sort that they theoretically don't make. I know it came under some fire (from me, largely) when it was applied to C Colden, who appeared to be a new user, and who was blocked for violating the ruling, despite not being covered by it. Of course, Colden turned out to be a sock, but that's neither here nor there.
A request for clarification on whether or not the parts of the ruling regarding the status of LaRouche sources are still in force would probably not be out of line.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:42 PM, Geoff Burling wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not in their favor.
And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered that editor might be.
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think it is especially important to clarify if a LaRouchite POV is a acceptable component of a pages NPOV, and if editors known to promote the inclusion of a LaRouchite POV are blockable for that alone.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/13/05, Snowspinner snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The exact standing of that arbcom ruling is in some doubt - mostly because it did kind of consist of the arbcom making a content ruling of the sort that they theoretically don't make. I know it came under some fire (from me, largely) when it was applied to C Colden, who appeared to be a new user, and who was blocked for violating the ruling, despite not being covered by it. Of course, Colden turned out to be a sock, but that's neither here nor there.
A request for clarification on whether or not the parts of the ruling regarding the status of LaRouche sources are still in force would probably not be out of line.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:42 PM, Geoff Burling wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not in their favor.
And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered that editor might be.
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It has been clearly demonstrated that LaRouchite POV is not a blocking offense through the C Colden case. Whether or not removal of LaRouche POV is de facto acceptable is less clear.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 12, 2005, at 9:05 PM, Jack Lynch wrote:
I think it is especially important to clarify if a LaRouchite POV is a acceptable component of a pages NPOV, and if editors known to promote the inclusion of a LaRouchite POV are blockable for that alone.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/13/05, Snowspinner snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The exact standing of that arbcom ruling is in some doubt - mostly because it did kind of consist of the arbcom making a content ruling of the sort that they theoretically don't make. I know it came under some fire (from me, largely) when it was applied to C Colden, who appeared to be a new user, and who was blocked for violating the ruling, despite not being covered by it. Of course, Colden turned out to be a sock, but that's neither here nor there.
A request for clarification on whether or not the parts of the ruling regarding the status of LaRouche sources are still in force would probably not be out of line.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:42 PM, Geoff Burling wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not in their favor.
And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill- tempered that editor might be.
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/12/05, Snowspinner snowspinner@gmail.com wrote: A request for clarification on whether or not the parts of the ruling
regarding the status of LaRouche sources are still in force would probably not be out of line.
The arbcom ruled that material stemming from LaRouche's publications constituted original research, though I'd have to check the precise wording. They ruled that LaRouche publications could be used, as primary sources, in articles closely related to LaRouche, but material stemming from LaRouche in articles not about him could be deleted on sight by any editor.
This ruling didn't just apply to the particular LaRouche editors at that time. It applied across the board, and there's no reason to suppose it was intended to expire.
It's an important ruling because LaRouche's publications routinely publish absolute nonsense - not just POV, but lunatic ramblings - including my personal favorite, which gives the flavor of the thing for those not familar with LaRouche, that an article in a British woman's magazine was a code from MI6 that the royal household intended to assassinate LaRouche because of his criticism of the Queen as a drug dealer. LaRouche's security staff passed the coded threat to the White House in case the Queen's people were also intending to harm the president.
That's what we're dealing with here, the Platonic form of original research.
Sarah
On 7/13/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not in their favor.
And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
They would indeed. However, who said them is essentially irrelevant. What is important is the attitude behind making such a statement.
I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered that editor might be.
I'm not for a moment trying to support LaRouche POV pushers. Seems to me that the system is working as intended to limit their penetration to the extent allowed by agreed wikipolicy i.e. not a lot.
What bothers me is the fact that long established editors seem to get to a point where they can't continue any longer and go off the rails and off the rules. Adam Carr isn't the first to do so in the six months or so that I've been here.
I mentioned earlier that his "ultimatum" sounded like a teenager's statements just before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. A plea for attention. This in itself is a fairly serious thing to do, indicating that the person making such a statement has reached the end of his own resources and needs external help. But I know for a fact that Adam has his own wikisupport network in place.
If these sorts of dramatic exits are common on Wikipedia, then I venture to suggest that something should be done to reduce their recurrence. I don't want to feel in a year or so that I can't go any further and that Wikipedia is doomed and that I'm following in the footsteps of a large number of burnt-out editors.
Regardless of my own differences with Adam (and those have almost always been over attitude rather than content), he made a valid point about a system that allows vandals and cranks to have a significant impact. If the cost of defending against people who dedicate their existence to pushing a POV is a string of burnt-out editors, then it may be too high, especially as nobody here is being paid for their time. Can we really expect unpaid volunteers to put themselves under heavy and unrelenting pressure?
I agree that alot needs to be done about stress. A successful mediation method would be a big step in that direction.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/13/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not in their favor.
And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
They would indeed. However, who said them is essentially irrelevant. What is important is the attitude behind making such a statement.
I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered that editor might be.
I'm not for a moment trying to support LaRouche POV pushers. Seems to me that the system is working as intended to limit their penetration to the extent allowed by agreed wikipolicy i.e. not a lot.
What bothers me is the fact that long established editors seem to get to a point where they can't continue any longer and go off the rails and off the rules. Adam Carr isn't the first to do so in the six months or so that I've been here.
I mentioned earlier that his "ultimatum" sounded like a teenager's statements just before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. A plea for attention. This in itself is a fairly serious thing to do, indicating that the person making such a statement has reached the end of his own resources and needs external help. But I know for a fact that Adam has his own wikisupport network in place.
If these sorts of dramatic exits are common on Wikipedia, then I venture to suggest that something should be done to reduce their recurrence. I don't want to feel in a year or so that I can't go any further and that Wikipedia is doomed and that I'm following in the footsteps of a large number of burnt-out editors.
Regardless of my own differences with Adam (and those have almost always been over attitude rather than content), he made a valid point about a system that allows vandals and cranks to have a significant impact. If the cost of defending against people who dedicate their existence to pushing a POV is a string of burnt-out editors, then it may be too high, especially as nobody here is being paid for their time. Can we really expect unpaid volunteers to put themselves under heavy and unrelenting pressure?
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
On 7/13/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not in their favor.
And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
They would indeed. However, who said them is essentially irrelevant. What is important is the attitude behind making such a statement.
I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered that editor might be.
I'm not for a moment trying to support LaRouche POV pushers. Seems to me that the system is working as intended to limit their penetration to the extent allowed by agreed wikipolicy i.e. not a lot.
It appears that you are reading my response as a defense of Carr -- which was not my intent, & your misunderstanding was likely due to how I expressed myself. So let me explain further.
It's apparent from your posts that you want Adam Carr censured for his incivility. And it is apparent from the responses to your posts that his incivility is widely acknowledged -- & likely makes any accusation you make of him suspect.
And there is a further point that has emerged from the submissions to this list: let's make the job of the ArbCom *simpler*. In other words, instead of finding hard cases where a plausible argument can be made to defend his behavior, find a clear case of Carr acting incivilly -- like a bully to a newbie, say -- that is not defensible.
And to be honest, while the language in the above sample you provide comes close to the line, not only does it not cross that line it is something that I can fully imagine any editor saying to a troublemaker in a moment of frustration. And I've seen worse said to people who sound eager to wind up before the ArbCom.
[snip]
I mentioned earlier that his "ultimatum" sounded like a teenager's statements just before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. A plea for attention. This in itself is a fairly serious thing to do, indicating that the person making such a statement has reached the end of his own resources and needs external help. But I know for a fact that Adam has his own wikisupport network in place.
I didn't get the same message, & suicide is a matter that I've unfortunately have had too much experience with.
If these sorts of dramatic exits are common on Wikipedia, then I venture to suggest that something should be done to reduce their recurrence. I don't want to feel in a year or so that I can't go any further and that Wikipedia is doomed and that I'm following in the footsteps of a large number of burnt-out editors.
One of the drawbacks of Wikipedia is in the effect conflicts have on its volunteers. (No one seems to have studied this angle, so what I am about to write is largely based on my unrepresentative sample of experience.) It seems that every editor eventually encounters a major struggle over content, which usually results in one of two responses: either the editor develops an extremely thick skin to further criticism & a very short temper with other people, or retreats off to work on one of the 90+% of articles that attract little attention due to their obscure or esoteric nature. In either case, the editor begins a gradual process of consciously isolating her/himself from the rest of Wikipedia -- which means that they are less likely to intervene & help resolve conflicts sucessfully elsewhere on Wikipedia. (This point was made to me some months ago in almost these exact words when I posted a note about a potential troublemaker on the admin bulletin board, & I suspect that this admin is not the only one who does not want to get involved in conflicts unless there is a clear "bad" guy & a clear "good" guy.)
And by isolating oneself here on Wikipedia, one loses out on the positive reinforcement that should come from working with other people for a common good. We have very few mechanisms on Wikipedia to break through this isolation, either intentional or accidental, & when some are used -- Barnstars & FAC nominations for example -- too often they also produce jealousy amongst other contributors, who then begin to suspect that there is a cabal -- or at the least a gang of cool kids who tell each other just how hip they are -- that they are not part of.
I have no good solution for this problem -- although I feel Wikimeetups are a good step. I'm not even certain whether this is a problem for more than a few people on Wikipedia -- which is why I mentioned that this is an issue worth some attention from the appropriate experts. Even though this would be a distraction from our goal of creating an encyclopedia.
Geoff
On 7/14/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
On 7/13/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit, so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular sort of crackpot.
What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of one particular editor?
Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not in their favor.
And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
They would indeed. However, who said them is essentially irrelevant. What is important is the attitude behind making such a statement.
I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered that editor might be.
I'm not for a moment trying to support LaRouche POV pushers. Seems to me that the system is working as intended to limit their penetration to the extent allowed by agreed wikipolicy i.e. not a lot.
It appears that you are reading my response as a defense of Carr -- which was not my intent, & your misunderstanding was likely due to how I expressed myself. So let me explain further.
Huh? How could I see it being a defence of Adam? I didn't. I interpreted it as an attempt to provide background on Larouche and Wikipedia. I don't really want to get involved in any of that; an issue so heavily polarised about which I know little promises nothing but grief. I'll stick to things I know about, thank'ee!
In fact I took pains to conceal the identity of the editor until you mentioned his name.
It's apparent from your posts that you want Adam Carr censured for his incivility. And it is apparent from the responses to your posts that his incivility is widely acknowledged -- & likely makes any accusation you make of him suspect.
I don't want Adam censured for his "incivility". I'd like him to accept that his "end justifies the means" attitude is counter-productive in this community. But that's beside the point.
And there is a further point that has emerged from the submissions to this list: let's make the job of the ArbCom *simpler*. In other words, instead of finding hard cases where a plausible argument can be made to defend his behavior, find a clear case of Carr acting incivilly -- like a bully to a newbie, say -- that is not defensible.
And to be honest, while the language in the above sample you provide comes close to the line, not only does it not cross that line it is something that I can fully imagine any editor saying to a troublemaker in a moment of frustration. And I've seen worse said to people who sound eager to wind up before the ArbCom.
I think you are barking up the wrong path here. Adam's language isn't the issue. There's no secret agenda here. I say what I mean and mean what I say.
[snip]
I mentioned earlier that his "ultimatum" sounded like a teenager's statements just before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. A plea for attention. This in itself is a fairly serious thing to do, indicating that the person making such a statement has reached the end of his own resources and needs external help. But I know for a fact that Adam has his own wikisupport network in place.
I didn't get the same message, & suicide is a matter that I've unfortunately have had too much experience with.
Look at in WP terms. He deleted his User and Talk pages, pages where he put pictures and material important to him, and replaced them with a stark boldface message. That in itself should make anyone's ears prick up, let alone the content of his message, where he threatens wikisuicide unless something happens. Anyway, I saw it as something that needed discussion, which is why I brought it up here.
Other Wikipedians gave warnings that he was reaching a crisis point. Ambi said a few weeks ago that one more crisis might push him out.
If these sorts of dramatic exits are common on Wikipedia, then I venture to suggest that something should be done to reduce their recurrence. I don't want to feel in a year or so that I can't go any further and that Wikipedia is doomed and that I'm following in the footsteps of a large number of burnt-out editors.
One of the drawbacks of Wikipedia is in the effect conflicts have on its volunteers. (No one seems to have studied this angle, so what I am about to write is largely based on my unrepresentative sample of experience.) It seems that every editor eventually encounters a major struggle over content, which usually results in one of two responses: either the editor develops an extremely thick skin to further criticism & a very short temper with other people, or retreats off to work on one of the 90+% of articles that attract little attention due to their obscure or esoteric nature. In either case, the editor begins a gradual process of consciously isolating her/himself from the rest of Wikipedia -- which means that they are less likely to intervene & help resolve conflicts sucessfully elsewhere on Wikipedia. (This point was made to me some months ago in almost these exact words when I posted a note about a potential troublemaker on the admin bulletin board, & I suspect that this admin is not the only one who does not want to get involved in conflicts unless there is a clear "bad" guy & a clear "good" guy.)
And by isolating oneself here on Wikipedia, one loses out on the positive reinforcement that should come from working with other people for a common good. We have very few mechanisms on Wikipedia to break through this isolation, either intentional or accidental, & when some are used -- Barnstars & FAC nominations for example -- too often they also produce jealousy amongst other contributors, who then begin to suspect that there is a cabal -- or at the least a gang of cool kids who tell each other just how hip they are -- that they are not part of.
I have no good solution for this problem -- although I feel Wikimeetups are a good step. I'm not even certain whether this is a problem for more than a few people on Wikipedia -- which is why I mentioned that this is an issue worth some attention from the appropriate experts. Even though this would be a distraction from our goal of creating an encyclopedia.
Mmmm. I haven't experienced the same personal response to a very bitter struggle over content, but I suspect I'm more of a Labrador to other peoples' terriers. Very hard to light my fuse, but neither will I slope off and do something else if I see something out of place.
Wikimeetups have to be a good thing. Personal contact helps build a sense of shared community. One of the great joys of my recent life has been meeting other members of the same on-line community, and it has been a thrill to meet in person some of the people behind the screen-names.
I haven't been involved in any local WP meetups and I'm not sure if there are any. Did WP use Meetup.com to organise gatherings, and if so what was the response to Meetup's recent "shoot itself in the foot" request for fees from organisers? On BookCrossing.com there was a mass exodus, largely to Yahoo.
But gatherings are pretty much a local thing, and again I'm the exception rather than the rule in that I'll happily hop on a jet and fly to the other side of the world to meet fellow BookCrossers. Funds permitting.
There are local community-based WP pages where group projects are raised and implemented, and they look like fun. Hard to forcibly integrate people into community activities if they don't want to be integrated, however.
And I made the point that Adam had his own wikisupport network, so it doesn't seem that he was in any way isolated or withdrawn. Just stressed.
A long time ago I learnt a little of leadership, and one of the few things I remember from those Army courses was that there were three levels of need that needed to be satisfied.
1. Task needs. Things like fighting a battle, reacting to a natural disaster, or writing an encyclopaedia. 2. Group maintenance needs. Having a party, an offsite, wearing the same uniforms, bonding activities. 3. Individual needs. Whatever the individual sees as important. Personal or family relationships, completing a course of study, buying a new car - whatever.
The wise leader balances all these needs and the result should be a group of happy individuals committed to success in the tasks it is set. But give any one type of need an overwhelming priority and things fall apart. If the focus is always on the task, then people become stressed and burn out. You can't keep on fighting battle after battle without relief ands stay sane, but neither can you put individual needs above all else otherwise the result is anarchy and important tasks don't get done.
Wikipedia is an important project, but it's performed by volunteers. We can't expect unpaid volunteers to burn themselves out by devoting ourselves single-mindedly to the task. But neither can we let every individual editor have their own way and edit what they want how they want, because then we get edit wars and conflict.
There has to be a balance and to my mind the group maintenance activities are lacking or not promoted highly enough. Where are the t-shirts, the meeting noticeboard, the group challenges and goals?
And where is the community support for editors who go off the rails? Phil's Wikimediation page looks like a good idea to me.
Again, I don't have the answers, but recognising the problem is a good start, and I think that we should be paying more attention to folk like Phil who are motivated enough to actually do something.
On 7/14/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Can we really expect unpaid volunteers to put themselves under heavy and unrelenting pressure?
We can, do, and should.
How do you think we got this far?
We've got this far, to the point where editors are burning out, because of the long and relentless pressure. I agree, it's something to be expected.
Anthere wrote:
While I was reading a protected article, I discovered at the bottom of the page the following disclaimer
This work may be protected by copyright. Please see 17 USC 108. This version of the article has been subsequently revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the GFDL.
I am *very* perplex. There are MANY reasons why an article can be protected on Wikipedia, and I would dare saying that having part of its content under copyright is probably the least probable reason for it to be restricted in edition. Protection is most of the time against vandalism or to cool down spirits. On the contrary, if an article contains factual inaccuracies or copyrighted material, it should be OPEN to editing so that it can be fixed as quickly as possible.
I perceive this disclaimer as possibly be meant to protect ourselves... but also as giving a very inacurate reason why we protect articles...
Second, WHY this reference to the US law code here?
Section 108 deals with the special rights available to libraries and archives. AFAIK There has been little if any discussion of whether we fall into that category of institution. This could eventually be a factor for Wikisource, but my first impression is that this citation is misplaced.
Ec