A few contributors have taken me to task, for daring to suggest that enforcing the rules of Wikipedia is a duty -- rather than something to be apologized for.
I do not believe in "moral equivalence". When people agree to follow rules, and one of them breaks the rule, another of them has the RIGHT to point out the violation. At this point, the two parties are no longer on the same standing. The violator takes the low road, and the pointer-outer takes the moral high road.
Normally, the offender would then apologize, make amends, etc. Others, including the pointer-outer would then forgive him.
Some people disagree with this norm. Or they think that social graces should apply to all situations, regardless of import. "Sorry, that's my seat." (apology given to offender!)
How about if someone wearing a tee-shirt with a large rooster on it walks down your street breaking car windows with a baseball bat. Would you feel a need to apologize to him, before calling the police? (Or getting together with a couple of neighbors and tackling him?)
Problems with Wik dragged on because we don't have clear moral ideas, that all subscribe to. The problem with 172 _was_ resolved (without resorting to the Arbitration Committee), because we were all able to discuss it on the mailing list. But Abe maintains the posture of having taken offense, rather than realizing he offended, so the resolution remains incomplete.
Imagine getting a phone call from the mother of the kid who was breaking car windows, demanding an apology: "How dare you tackle (or call the police on) him?" Would you say, "Sorry, I admit it was wrong for me to try to stop him from destroying things. I promise not to do it again."? That's ridiculous.
Ed Poor
Ed Poor wrote
A few contributors have taken me to task, for daring to suggest that
enforcing the rules of Wikipedia is a duty -- rather than something to be apologized for.
That may well be true. I, for my part, would take Ed to task for consistently asserting that the end justifies the means, in WP matters.
<snip>
Problems with Wik dragged on because we don't have clear moral ideas,
that all subscribe to.
That the end does not justify the means is a clear moral idea. It is true that not all here subscribe to it. In the case, the end (that the atmosphere on WP would be cleared with his departure) would have happily been used to justify the means by a number of prominent sysops - whether or not the means had the sanction of agreed policy or process. That seems to be the limited basis, such as it is, of the 'cabal' claim.
The problem with 172 _was_ resolved (without
resorting to the Arbitration Committee), because we were all able to discuss it on the mailing list. But Abe maintains the posture of having taken offense, rather than realizing he offended, so the resolution remains incomplete.
I think anyone in future (and let's hope this kind of scenario is something from which WP moves on) who sees Ed in provocative action on the mailing list should take good note of the history on this. Ed is happy with resolution/closure on matters seen as dragging on ('log-jams', as he put it in another self-justifying mail to this list); Ed doesn't mind going outside norms to get movement; if the end has sufficient support, then Ed will see no reason to apologise, though he will issue various statements that he is backing down, willing to compromise, is contrite for any infringements, and so on. Beware of the dog/chien mechant.
Charles
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I do not believe in "moral equivalence". When people agree to follow rules, and one of them breaks the rule, another of them has the RIGHT to point out the violation. At this point, the two parties are no longer on the same standing. The violator takes the low road, and the pointer-outer takes the moral high road.
Whatever happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. You are presuming that the prosecutor is correct. There is more to guilt than the obvious violation of a rule.
Americans are essentially a law-abiding peoples, and would sacrifice common sense to ensure that the law is enforced.
Some people disagree with this norm. Or they think that social graces should apply to all situations, regardless of import.
Violating a law or a rule does not mean that damage is being done. Civil disobedience is an important part of democracy. It breaks laws, but does not cause damage.
How about if someone wearing a tee-shirt with a large rooster on it walks down your street breaking car windows with a baseball bat. Would you feel a need to apologize to him, before calling the police? (Or getting together with a couple of neighbors and tackling him?)
Given the complete irrelevance of the rooster, this suggest that if he had worn a business suit and necktie he might be treated differently. :-)
Problems with Wik dragged on because we don't have clear moral ideas, that all subscribe to.
Perhaps so.
The problem with 172 _was_ resolved (without resorting to the Arbitration Committee), because we were all able to discuss it on the mailing list. But Abe maintains the posture of having taken offense, rather than realizing he offended, so the resolution remains incomplete.
If the issue was resolved on the mailing list that should be the end of it...Why should his taking offense be treated as posturing? When major companies settle a law suit out of court, they will readily pay out large sums, but often insist that the settlement agreement include a clause saying that the payment does not imply accepting responsibility for whatever was alleged in the suit. If he honestly believes that he has not offended, why insist that he realize that he has?
Ec
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:47:23 UTC, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Americans are essentially a law-abiding peoples, and would sacrifice common sense to ensure that the law is enforced.
I do wish we could reduce the amount of nationalist sniping and worse than useless generalities.
Another thing Americans like to do: Laugh scornfully at other countries' rigid bureaucacies mindlessly enforcing the letter of massive, intrusive, and stupid laws and regulations. (Since some people can't imagine an American saying anything that is not shallow and dogmatic, I need to explain that those opinions of other countries' administrations are not necessarily *true*; just that that's a perception, not necessarily less valid than the one cited above.)