[Moderators: if you don't wish to forward this post, I'll understand. If you do, thanks in advance. --Larry Sanger]
All,
I saw this unfortunate article
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
and I felt inspired to reach out to the Wikipedia community and invite those of you who are seriously disaffected to give the Citizendium (http://www.citizendium.org/) another look. In case you took seriously a certain article about us in the Wikipedia Signpost last summer, let's just say that wishful reports of our demise were greatly exaggerated. Since then, we've nearly doubled our number of articles and our activity; our growth has been accerating, and recently, we've had a great growth spurt. Obviously, we're still small, but we've got an excellent opportunity to replicate Wikipedia-style growth.
I've never actually extended an invitation to Wikipedians before. I've always felt that Wikipedia and the Citizendium naturally attract different constituencies, and that that's a positive thing. I have never wanted to appear to be competing with Wikipedia for people. I just didn't think that's necessary--and I still don't.
But, especially to those people who are seriously disappointed with the management of the Wikipedia community, I feel it's appropriate and important that I say: we all (humanity) might be able to do better than the Wikipedia model of production and governance. Maybe, for some of you, it's time to explore the Citizendium model.
I know I'm going to make a lot of people angry or disappointed by my saying this here, in the lion's den, so to speak. (Does it help that I started this list? I doubt it. :-) ) I'm sure there will be no shortage of hostile response. But bear in mind, I am reaching out only to people who are seriously disappointed with Wikipedia or its management. I think this is within the properly critical spirit of the open source/free culture movement. After all, I am *not* trying to undermine Wikipedia, which I hope will always exist as a popular source of information. (I've always said that.) I'm merely trying to build *another* source of information. I hope that those who are contemplating exiting Wikipedia will consider joining the Citizendium.
If you want to know how (we think) we're different, see this page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:We_aren%27t_Wikipedia
The present "scandal" is over the community and governance. So what's special or interesting about the Citizendium community and governance? Here's a summary.
The community as a whole is by and large a mature and pleasant place to work. But it's still an open wiki.
We are ramping up an open, online representative republic. (We're still drafting our rules!) Among other things, this means we've got an Editorial Council (a "legislative"), a Constabulary (a "police force"), an Executive Committee (an "executive"), and we will soon be adding an independent judiciary. These community components are rule-governed and being established with the well-known challenges of Wikipedia's community in mind.
We take "the rule of law" seriously. "Ignore all rules," which I originally proposed for Wikipedia as a sort of joke back in the spring of 2001, isn't recommended. Boldness and not caring too much if you make beginner mistakes are strongly recommended. (But that was the original spirit of "ignore all rules," in case you didn't know.)
We require that contributors agree with a Statement of Fundamental Policies. (And, soon, a Citizendium Charter.) No endless arguing about our fundamental policies: we are all committed to them up front. We still argue about stuff that really matters. We take the notion of "cyber-citizenship" seriously.
We require real names. We actually check that there is someone with a particular (real) name and we try to match this name up with an e-mail address. Our methods of doing this are very fallible, but so far they seem to have worked just fine. So sockpuppetry, while in principle still possible, becomes much, much more difficult. (I'm not aware of our having any sockpuppet contributors on CZ.)
On the issue in question--should there be a "secret cabal" of people to deal with sockpuppets?--well, it's interesting. On the one hand, we don't have a sockpuppet problem to speak of, because we require real names. On the other hand, we do have a "Constabulary," and occasionally they deal with difficult cases, and indeed privately, but the constables are bound by certain rules. Among the rules are the right to appeal to a fully independent body. For example, recently one editor (a very kind University of Edinburgh professor who served in the same appeal function that we'll soon formalize with the Judicial Board) "heard" an appeal and reversed my decision to ban someone. This is fine with me and I am glad to be able to demonstrate that I do *not* have the final say. No single individual should, in a republic.
The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule of law. But, just as with closed police records, closed access is sometimes necessary to protect contributor privacy and interests, and to avoid libel issues needlessly. If a person wishes us to make our deliberations public, we will. We regard it as their *right* as a citizen. This guarantee of rights, however, would be rather more problematic if we weren't using real names.
In terms of management, to set a positive precedent, I plan to step down as editor-in-chief and hand over the reins to someone else--within the next year or two at most. This will require that I do fundraising to pay this person's salary, because I myself have been living strictly from writing, speaking, and consulting fees. I will at that time no longer play *any* role, formal or informal, in the governance of the Citizendium encyclopedia project. (I will try to behave like the traditional disinterested U.S. ex-president.) It just seems obvious to me that the leader of an allegedly democratic project should actually *step aside* when he's handed over the reins of power.
Finally, we have a role for experts (only they are called our "editors"), who can approve articles and make content decisions where necessary, but who otherwise work shoulder-to-shoulder with everyone. In fact, anyone can join (as an "author") and contribute, as long as they are 13 or older, write good English and otherwise make a positive contribution, agree with our fundamental principles, and help us establish that the name/identity they claim is their own real name.
If you are motivated to try something different, join here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount
Coincidentally, tomorrow (Wednesday) is a good day to join. It's our monthly Write-a-Thon (details linked from the front page).
By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to announce our license before *too* much longer. The announcement will be accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet. Please don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's a decent chance it will be compatible.
Also, by the way, I'm going to start up SharedKnowing (a new, "neutral" mailing list) soon. Some prominent Wikipedians are already subscribed. Join here:
http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more
In conclusion, I'm hoping sincerely for the best outcome for everyone. I hope Wikipedia can overcome its obviously difficult problems, and let me add that I don't expect the Citizendium to be free of problems when it's bigger, either. They'll just be different, and I hope not so fundamental.
My best to the Wikipedia community, Larry Sanger Wikipedia ex-co-founder ;-)
----- Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D. | http://www.larrysanger.org/ Editor-in-Chief, Citizendium | http://www.citizendium.org/ sanger@citizendium.org
Thanks for the post, Larry.
On 12/5/07, Larry Sanger sanger@citizendium.org wrote:
shortage of hostile response. But bear in mind, I am reaching out only to people who are seriously disappointed with Wikipedia or its management. I think this is within the properly critical spirit of the
Personally, what I find disappointing is how much is made of these incidents. There are a lot of drama queens here.
In terms of management, to set a positive precedent, I plan to step down as editor-in-chief and hand over the reins to someone else--within the next year or two at most. This will require that I do fundraising to
I wish we had an editor-in-chief. Anarchy works best with a dictator. Since Jimbo became less hands-on, there has been a real leadership vaccuum.
pay this person's salary, because I myself have been living strictly from writing, speaking, and consulting fees. I will at that time no longer play *any* role, formal or informal, in the governance of the Citizendium encyclopedia project. (I will try to behave like the traditional disinterested U.S. ex-president.) It just seems obvious to me that the leader of an allegedly democratic project should actually *step aside* when he's handed over the reins of power.
Nah. Forego the one person with the most experience, credibility and understanding of the project?
If you are motivated to try something different, join here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount
I'm not yet convinced that the world needs two community-edited encyclopaedias. I wonder if someone will attempt a project to fuse them. Maybe such a thing already exists: browse both in parallel, every time you click a link it looks in both of them. Maybe we should be considering interwiki links to CZ? The information would still be separate, and we could still distinguish between the models used to create it.
By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to announce our license before *too* much longer. The announcement will be accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet. Please don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's a decent chance it will be compatible.
Ony a chance? Phooey.
http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more
"Well-reasoned, polite discussion of the nature of online knowledge production communities, with special but not exclusive focus on community policy (production, governance, management) questions; "the new politics of knowledge" broadly speaking."
What, is something wrong with wikien-l??
Steve
On 05/12/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
every time you click a link it looks in both of them. Maybe we should be considering interwiki links to CZ? The information would still be separate, and we could still distinguish between the models used to create it.
Heh, that's an interesting idea.
By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to announce our license before *too* much longer. The announcement will be accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet. Please don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's a decent chance it will be compatible.
Ony a chance? Phooey.
Larry has posted to citizendium-l saying that with the WMF/FSF/CC announcement, that a future GFDL will be CC-by-sa compatible, that the Citizendium licence *will not* be GFDL. (Which is IMO quite sensible, 'cos the GFDL sucks for massive-collaboration articles of a few pages, for images, for motion pictures ...)
http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more
"Well-reasoned, polite discussion of the nature of online knowledge production communities, with special but not exclusive focus on community policy (production, governance, management) questions; "the new politics of knowledge" broadly speaking." What, is something wrong with wikien-l??
*cough* It's an ideal to work towards.
- d.
On Dec 5, 2007 7:11 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/12/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to announce our license before *too* much longer. The announcement will be accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet. Please don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's a decent chance it will be compatible.
Ony a chance? Phooey.
Larry has posted to citizendium-l saying that with the WMF/FSF/CC announcement, that a future GFDL will be CC-by-sa compatible, that the Citizendium licence *will not* be GFDL. (Which is IMO quite sensible, 'cos the GFDL sucks for massive-collaboration articles of a few pages, for images, for motion pictures ...)
Yeah, but the other possibility is that the license will be CC-BY-NC-SA.
The very fact that Larry expects people to contribute their work to Citizendium without even knowing what license is going to be used strikes me as incredibly wrong.
Please don't contribute to Citizendium. Not yet. If you think you might want to, drop a note to Larry telling him to pick a license first. And preferably, tell him not to pick a non-commercial only license.
Anthony
http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more
"Well-reasoned, polite discussion of the nature of online knowledge production communities, with special but not exclusive focus on community policy (production, governance, management) questions; "the new politics of knowledge" broadly speaking." What, is something wrong with wikien-l??
*cough* It's an ideal to work towards.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 05/12/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/07, Larry Sanger sanger@citizendium.org wrote:
shortage of hostile response. But bear in mind, I am reaching out only to people who are seriously disappointed with Wikipedia or its management. I think this is within the properly critical spirit of the
Personally, what I find disappointing is how much is made of these incidents. There are a lot of drama queens here.
Actually, for all the "drama queens" there are, it does not seem logical to assume that those who don't kick up a fuss don't care about the issues. The vociferous individuals making most noise over issues should really only be considered the tip of the iceberg, rather than an assumption be made that because there are few who are so extreme in their reactions, that the problems don't exist.
What I find a lot more disappointing than outraged inarticulate "drama queens" who may indeed detract from the issues at hand, is the tendency for other Wikipedia contributors to stick their head in the sand and pretend everything is great, or at the very least, stick to the view that despite any problems, the project and its most involved contributors are proceeding in the right direction.
Zoney
On 12/6/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
What I find a lot more disappointing than outraged inarticulate "drama queens" who may indeed detract from the issues at hand, is the tendency for other Wikipedia contributors to stick their head in the sand and pretend everything is great, or at the very least, stick to the view that despite any problems, the project and its most involved contributors are proceeding in the right direction.
Guilty as charged. Nothing I do, have done, or am likely to do on Wikipedia is affected by these kinds of shenanigans. So I'm writing articles about Victorian state parks...how am I affected by whether someone got a bit zealous with the block stick?
Which isn't to say that I don't think things could be better. But one more outraged voice isn't going to help. If only there was a place, a mailing list or something, where one could discuss such things without hysteria...
Steve
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
Guilty as charged. Nothing I do, have done, or am likely to do on Wikipedia is affected by these kinds of shenanigans. So I'm writing articles about Victorian state parks...how am I affected by whether someone got a bit zealous with the block stick?
Imagine that some group of admins get together to decide that no articlr should be allowed to use the letter 'Z' in an article, except when that letter is in the subject, and even then it should be minimized as much as possible.
Your article about Victorian state parks contains the letter Z. But people who try to put the letter 'Z' in articles, in violation of policy, get blocked. Since you ignore the admins, the first you hear of it is when someone takes all the Z's out of the article you just wrote.
Presto, you're affected.
Admins make decisions which affect the whole Wikipedia. Replace 'contains a Z' with 'contains a BADSITE' or 'has a spoiler warning' or any other global change.
On 06/12/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Admins make decisions which affect the whole Wikipedia. Replace 'contains a Z' with 'contains a BADSITE' or 'has a spoiler warning' or any other global change.
No, you should definitely replace it with HITLER. That's a much more realistic analogy.
- d.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Admins make decisions which affect the whole Wikipedia. Replace 'contains a Z' with 'contains a BADSITE' or 'has a spoiler warning' or any other global change.
No, you should definitely replace it with HITLER. That's a much more realistic analogy.
The question was "why should I care about blocking if I just work on articles"? The answer is "because admins may make rules that prevent you from working on those articles in some ways, under penalty of blocking". How exactly is that so bad (or so redundant) an answer that it needs to be dismissed with Godwin's Law?
(By the way, it's generally agreed that you can't invoke Godwin's Law by deliberately mentioning Hitler.)
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:05:16 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Admins make decisions which affect the whole Wikipedia. Replace 'contains a Z' with 'contains a BADSITE' or 'has a spoiler warning' or any other global change.
Approximately 2 million articles contain a Z
Approximately five articles contained a link that was removed under BADSITES.
Perhaps the analogy is not quite as strong as you make out?
Guy (JzG)
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Admins make decisions which affect the whole Wikipedia. Replace 'contains a Z' with 'contains a BADSITE' or 'has a spoiler warning' or any other global change.
Approximately 2 million articles contain a Z
Approximately five articles contained a link that was removed under BADSITES.
Perhaps the analogy is not quite as strong as you make out?
The fact that the rule doesn't affect many articles overall doesn't matter, if you happen to be one of the ones affected.
(Besides, spoiler warnings affected 45 *thousand* articles.)
On Dec 7, 2007 10:00 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Admins make decisions which affect the whole Wikipedia. Replace
'contains
a Z' with 'contains a BADSITE' or 'has a spoiler warning' or any other global change.
Approximately 2 million articles contain a Z
Approximately five articles contained a link that was removed under BADSITES.
Perhaps the analogy is not quite as strong as you make out?
The fact that the rule doesn't affect many articles overall doesn't matter, if you happen to be one of the ones affected.
If you're objecting to admins arbitrarily imposing new policy, then there's no authority for them to do that. WP:BOLD has some rather stringent limits (any other admin says "no" firmly, for example).
Admins tend to be policymakers and visa versa, but that's because policymakers are usually people who've been around and care about it, and people nominated to adminship tend to be people who've been around and care about it and who were visible to someone who cares or knows to nominate, usually an admin... Any user can participate in the policy processes.
(Besides, spoiler warnings affected 45 *thousand* articles.)
Spoiler warnings wasn't an admin decision.
The people who took the action were admins, but they didn't do so under color of authority per se, as far as I am aware and the discussions here went recently.
On 07/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The people who took the action were admins, but they didn't do so under color of authority per se, as far as I am aware and the discussions here went recently.
Tony Sidaway isn't and wasn't an admin.
- d.
On Dec 7, 2007 12:45 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The people who took the action were admins, but they didn't do so under color of authority per se, as far as I am aware and the discussions here went recently.
Tony Sidaway isn't and wasn't an admin.
He used to be, though not in this timeframe.
Was he the only one who removed the spoilers tags?
On 07/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Was he the only one who removed the spoilers tags?
No, but he removed more than I did.
- d.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, David Gerard wrote:
The people who took the action were admins, but they didn't do so under color of authority per se, as far as I am aware and the discussions here went recently.
Tony Sidaway isn't and wasn't an admin.
But he acted under color of authority. AWB requires permission, which can be revoked.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, George Herbert wrote:
Spoiler warnings wasn't an admin decision.
The people who took the action were admins, but they didn't do so under color of authority per se, as far as I am aware and the discussions here went recently.
But attempts to get the spoiler warning change rescinded were blocked by admins. The arbcom case was closed and the request for revoking AWB was rejected. And one reason it's pointless to start reverting the policy changes made is that we all know that admins will consider the spoiler warning proponents to be edit-warring, not the opponents.
(Or at least one reason it was pointless back then. The main reason it's pointless *now* is that even though no-warnings never really had consensus, it is now perceived to be the status quo, and so repeatedly taking it out of a policy would be considered edit warring, not reverting a change made without consensus, even though that's exactly what it is.)
Guy said:
Approximately 2 million articles contain a Z
Approximately five articles contained a link that was removed under BADSITES.
Perhaps the analogy is not quite as strong as you make out?
Yeah... the "rutabaga" analogy is more apt. 187 articles currently contain that word, while a few hundred contain links to sites that have been considered "badsites" by some.
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:06:16 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yeah... the "rutabaga" analogy is more apt. 187 articles currently contain that word, while a few hundred contain links to sites that have been considered "badsites" by some.
You really have no idea how offensive your fatuous example is to those who have been viciously attacked, do you?
But then I don't suppose you've ever had your home address and telephone stuck on the web, or had people call your home, or try to get you sacked, or stalk you.
Tempting though it is to wish that you could see the other side of that particular coin, actually I would not wish it on my worst enemy. So do please try to use your evidently fertile imagination instead.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:06:16 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yeah... the "rutabaga" analogy is more apt. 187 articles currently contain that word, while a few hundred contain links to sites that have been considered "badsites" by some.
You really have no idea how offensive your fatuous example is to those who have been viciously attacked, do you?
But then I don't suppose you've ever had your home address and telephone stuck on the web, or had people call your home, or try to get you sacked, or stalk you.
Tempting though it is to wish that you could see the other side of that particular coin, actually I would not wish it on my worst enemy. So do please try to use your evidently fertile imagination instead.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
The whole lot of you really need to stop this. Guy, there are plenty of people who have had all of those things happen to them, and it is insulting for those of us who have had it happen to hear you imply that not linking to Wikipedia Review will save us from such things happening. If you use your real name on the web, and you tick off real people, they may well give you real life headaches. I am terribly sorry your wife is paying the price for your hobby.
And Dan - yes, Rutabaga is insulting.
This discussion has gone on long enough, and everyone just needs to get over themselves. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong.
Now...go to your rooms or no pudding.
Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 6, 2007 5:16 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
The whole lot of you really need to stop this. Guy, there are plenty of people who have had all of those things happen to them, and it is insulting for those of us who have had it happen to hear you imply that not linking to Wikipedia Review will save us from such things happening. If you use your real name on the web, and you tick off real people, they may well give you real life headaches. I am terribly sorry your wife is paying the price for your hobby.
And Dan - yes, Rutabaga is insulting.
This discussion has gone on long enough, and everyone just needs to get over themselves. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong.
Now...go to your rooms or no pudding.
+1
Alec, Guy, Dan, Jay... take a walk. Outside. Breathe in the cool air of the boreal winter. Look up at the sky and ponder the vastness of the universe. When you come back, try not to read e-mail for the next few days. Trust me, if there's anything that needs to be said, someone else will say it for you; the list membership is both broad and deep. Just start by going for a walk. Now, or as soon as you can bundle up (it's cold!), would be a good time.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:05:19 -0500, "Michael Noda" michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, Guy, Dan, Jay... take a walk. Outside. Breathe in the cool air of the boreal winter. Look up at the sky and ponder the vastness of the universe. When you come back, try not to read e-mail for the next few days. Trust me, if there's anything that needs to be said, someone else will say it for you; the list membership is both broad and deep. Just start by going for a walk. Now, or as soon as you can bundle up (it's cold!), would be a good time.
Don't be absurd, it's dark, pissing with rain and blowing half a gale.
On the plus side, I've just been invited to sing the baritone solo in a performance of the Fauré Requiem, which is nice.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 6, 2007 7:41 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:05:19 -0500, "Michael Noda" michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, Guy, Dan, Jay... take a walk. Outside. Breathe in the cool air of the boreal winter. Look up at the sky and ponder the vastness of the universe. When you come back, try not to read e-mail for the next few days. Trust me, if there's anything that needs to be said, someone else will say it for you; the list membership is both broad and deep. Just start by going for a walk. Now, or as soon as you can bundle up (it's cold!), would be a good time.
Don't be absurd, it's dark, pissing with rain and blowing half a gale.
I'll see your dark and blowing, and raise you snow and ice in a neighborhood of 10%+ hills. UK weather is not an automatic win in Misery Poker. Just dress for the weather; it'll be good for the soul.
On the plus side, I've just been invited to sing the baritone solo in a performance of the Fauré Requiem, which is nice.
Ooh, congratulations!
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:13:20 -0500, "Michael Noda" michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
I'll see your dark and blowing, and raise you snow and ice in a neighborhood of 10%+ hills. UK weather is not an automatic win in Misery Poker. Just dress for the weather; it'll be good for the soul.
I'll get me bike....
Probably the stick-bike, the 'bent is no good on steep hills.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 6, 2007 5:13 PM, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 7:41 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:05:19 -0500, "Michael Noda" michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, Guy, Dan, Jay... take a walk. Outside. Breathe in the cool air of the boreal winter. Look up at the sky and ponder the vastness of the universe. When you come back, try not to read e-mail for the next few days. Trust me, if there's anything that needs to be said, someone else will say it for you; the list membership is both broad and deep. Just start by going for a walk. Now, or as soon as you can bundle up (it's cold!), would be a good time.
Don't be absurd, it's dark, pissing with rain and blowing half a gale.
I'll see your dark and blowing, and raise you snow and ice in a neighborhood of 10%+ hills. UK weather is not an automatic win in Misery Poker. Just dress for the weather; it'll be good for the soul.
Oooh, Misery Poker! Can I play?
Oh wait, I live in California. Never mind. It is raining, though.
-- phoebe
On Dec 6, 2007 11:50 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Oooh, Misery Poker! Can I play?
Oh wait, I live in California. Never mind. It is raining, though.
-- phoebe
I live in Texas. Current temp: 64F. Today's expected high: 80F.
Did I wake up in the wrong hemisphere again?
InkSplotch
On Dec 7, 2007 9:13 AM, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 11:50 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Oooh, Misery Poker! Can I play?
Oh wait, I live in California. Never mind. It is raining, though.
-- phoebe
I live in Texas. Current temp: 64F. Today's expected high: 80F.
Did I wake up in the wrong hemisphere again?
While we're on the topic, I'm in New Hampshire where it's currently 10F (-12C) outside.
Johnleemk
On 12/6/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On 12/6/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yeah... the "rutabaga" analogy is more apt.
You really have no idea how offensive your fatuous example is to those who have been viciously attacked, do you?
The whole lot of you really need to stop this...
[...]
And Dan - yes, Rutabaga is insulting.
Forgive me if my question is a grossly ignorant one, but I'm not finding Swedish turnips offensive at face value. Does "rutabaga" have some non-literal meaning in this context or is this another silly inside joke?
—C.W.
On 12/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On 12/6/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yeah... the "rutabaga" analogy is more apt.
You really have no idea how offensive your fatuous example is to those who have been viciously attacked, do you?
The whole lot of you really need to stop this...
[...]
And Dan - yes, Rutabaga is insulting.
Forgive me if my question is a grossly ignorant one, but I'm not finding Swedish turnips offensive at face value. Does "rutabaga" have some non-literal meaning in this context or is this another silly inside joke?
—C.W.
Dan initially used the "rutabaga analogy" in the BADSITES/NPA Arbcom case, in a way that could be interpreted to have denigrated the opinions of others including JzG. Continuing to bring it up is an extension of that belittling. My personal opinion on that particular subject is closer to Dan's than JzG's; but I have no doubt that JzG is responding from his own strong personal beliefs, and should not be hit over the head with a rutabaga when he expresses them. On the other hand, I am tired of the strawman that banning links to critical sites (regardless of their behaviour) will prevent a single case of harassment of Wikipedians.
Everyone knows what these two fellows (and a few others who just didn't happen to be online last night) have to say on the subject, we've heard it for about 9 months now on a near daily basis. In my opinion, it's time to give it a rest.
Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
You really have no idea how offensive your fatuous example is to those who have been viciously attacked, do you?
But then I don't suppose you've ever had your home address and telephone stuck on the web, or had people call your home, or try to get you sacked, or stalk you.
That's like saying "have you ever had your family slaughtered in front of you? No? Then you should never object to the police searching someone without a warrant. After all, a warrantless search could prevent a tragedy like that."
On 12/8/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
That's like saying "have you ever had your family slaughtered in front of you? No? Then you should never object to the police searching someone without a warrant. After all, a warrantless search could prevent a tragedy like that."
Ok, please stop this. Right now. All of you.
Thanks, Steve
On 06/12/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Admins make decisions which affect the whole Wikipedia. Replace 'contains a Z' with 'contains a BADSITE' or 'has a spoiler warning' or any other global change.
Some admins make those decisions. Not all admins are on Wikipedia every waking hour, participating in every crisis, dispute, etc.
The problem with our decision-making across the board is that it involves generally just a handful of editors who happen to be around (lets face it, for major issues even an order of a hundred is not necessarily representative - but we may be talking even just half a dozen!). There are even rules to stop people spreading the word about discussions/disputes underway! Why does anyone consider this a sane modus operandi?
Zoney
On 12/7/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Imagine that some group of admins get together to decide that no articlr should be allowed to use the letter 'Z' in an article, except when that letter is in the subject, and even then it should be minimized as much as possible.
Your article about Victorian state parks contains the letter Z. But people who try to put the letter 'Z' in articles, in violation of policy, get blocked. Since you ignore the admins, the first you hear of it is when someone takes all the Z's out of the article you just wrote.
Presto, you're affected.
Right. *If* I had done this, and if that policy was in place, and *if* I was blocked for it, I *would* be affected. Failing that, I edit as normal.
Admins make decisions which affect the whole Wikipedia.
Really? That's not my impression. Now I'm torn between reading up enough on this affair to attempt to refute you, or retaining my sanity.
Steve
Ken wrote:
Imagine that some group of admins get together to decide that no articlr should be allowed to use the letter 'Z' in an article, except when that letter is in the subject, and even then it should be minimized as much as possible.
That would be a ridiculous policy. They should only ban truly offensive things, like the word "rutabaga"! :-)
I just want to say, this thread has made me SO happy and confident about the future of the world. The issues of sockpuppets and cabals look alot less scary whene we're reminded that Wikipedia is not the only wany of organizing the world's information.
Wikinfo, I think, is a very very valuable thing that needed doing. Who said NPOV has to be the best way of presenting the world's information?? Surely, there's room in any good paper for both the News section and the Editorial section.
Veriopedia, meanwhile, considered that maybe having any encyclopedia where "there is no deadline" aren't the best ways to do things-- maybe it would be better to have articles that are peer-reviewed prior to publication, and frozen. This would be horrible if it were the ONLY 'peidia on the block, but combined with Wikipedia, I think they're two great tastes that go great together.
Citzenpedia is another really interesting way of writing a project. Suppose "Anyone can edit" isn't the best way to present the world's information, and "Deferring to credentialed experts" is a better way to do things. This cuts out all the problems of outing, socks, and vandalize, but of course, Citzenpedia would never be able to have the breadth of Wiikipedia.
And then, there's our beloved wikipedia, which is the project I personally am most attracted to. Cabals and secret mailing lists asside, there's only SO much damage that can any cabal could do. NPOV,or attempted NPOV, is the style of writing I most prefer, so while I value Wikinfo's existence, it's not the ony I'm drawn to. I feel stongly that "who you are" shouldn't affect "how your work is judged" so Citzenpedia doesn't appeal to me as much. Veropedia, or something like it, is going to be an essential partnert to wikipedia. We need a *pedia where "If you see it in THE SUN it's so."-- Wikipedia can never achieve this goal, but we can be an ESSNENTIAL half of the process.
On 12/5/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not yet convinced that the world needs two community-edited encyclopaedias. I wonder if someone will attempt a project to fuse them. Maybe such a thing already exists: browse both in parallel, every time you click a link it looks in both of them. Maybe we should be considering interwiki links to CZ? The information would still be separate, and we could still distinguish between the models used to create it.
I can't TELL You how happy this would make me. The copyright issues would have to be resolved, so that people could free to copy text back and forth, but I would LOVE to see Wikipedia just be one of a family of wikis with close ties, where you could easily see if some other project had a take on the same subject. I'm convinced that this, or something like it, is the next step-- Web 3.0 or whatever you want to call it. Where one could jump from "which editoral policies you want to see" just as easily as one can currently jump from which language you want to see.
And then, it takes the pressure off everybody. I don't have to fight the secret mailing lists quite as hard, because any "cabal" can only affect one FLAVOR of the content. The vandal-fighters don't have to have quite as much pressure on them, beause the other flavors exist to sort out only the "good portions" of wikipedia, discarding the vandalism. The badsites advocates wouldn't have to fight as hard because they could make their own flavor that doesn't link to badsites, and the anti-badsites advocates and censorship-phobics wouldn't have to stress as much, because they could make their own "uncensored" versions of articles where the information could still get out.
I don't know if anyone is enthusiastic about Steve's idea fof inter-wiki links as much as I am, but I think he's hit on the first step to the next wonderful beautiful evolution of the wiki, andthat is BEYOND wonderful.
Alec
Wikipedia would stilll be the one I'd be drawn to contribute to in most cases, but
I'm split by Larry's email because the truth is, I on a personal emotional level, like the Wikipedia model best of any I've seen. .
On Dec 5, 2007 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the post, Larry.
On 12/5/07, Larry Sanger sanger@citizendium.org wrote:
In terms of management, to set a positive precedent, I plan to step down as editor-in-chief and hand over the reins to someone else--within the next year or two at most. This will require that I do fundraising to
I wish we had an editor-in-chief. Anarchy works best with a dictator. Since Jimbo became less hands-on, there has been a real leadership vaccuum.
Amen. I know at least part of this is "the grass is greener on the older side" biased looking-back, but if you ask me, when Jimbo was more hands-on, it was easier to build policy and reach consensus because someone was driving things. If Jimbo said something a lot of us thought was wrong, that galvanised opposition - and if he said something a lot of us were ok with, then it went. (To take one example, I'm pretty sure that if we'd tried to gather consensus for turning off anon page creation, as opposed to Jimbo declaring/deciding, we wouldn't have found it.)
Johnleemk
Larry Sanger wrote:
The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule of law.
Seems pretty clear it's anathema on Wikipedia too, based on the general reaction when this came to light. And the secret body in this case didn't even have "authority" in any sort of official sense.
(This is of course assuming that you're drawing a distinction between Wikipedia and Citizendium with that "committed to the rule of law" line - Wikipedia does have some rather solid foundation policies under it all, I'd hardly call it an anarchy.)
By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to announce our license before *too* much longer. The announcement will be accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet. Please don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's a decent chance it will be compatible.
Frankly, it seems vaguely sleazy to me somehow to be soliciting contributions when it still hasn't been decided what license they'll be released under.
On Dec 5, 2007 12:54 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote:
The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule of law.
Seems pretty clear it's anathema on Wikipedia too, based on the general reaction when this came to light. And the secret body in this case didn't even have "authority" in any sort of official sense.
And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases", so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect record of assuming bad faith still applies.
On 05/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases", so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect record of assuming bad faith still applies.
If you are going to keep trying to play the plausible denyability card it is to be expected that people are going to start opting for collective responsibility.
On Dec 5, 2007 2:52 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases", so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect record of assuming bad faith still applies.
If you are going to keep trying to play the plausible denyability card it is to be expected that people are going to start opting for collective responsibility.
Ah, geni, is that the "collective responsibility" promoted by some unnamed religious groups who have an unnamed "moral code" that counts failure to read e-mails as a "moral failure" and who follow Asimov's First Law of Robotics?
On 05/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, geni, is that the "collective responsibility" promoted by some unnamed religious groups who have an unnamed "moral code"
Judaism (you notice that with a couple of exceptions Yahweh tends to smite collectively), versions of Christianity (what do you think original sin is?). I understand that these groups and their beliefs are fairly well known.
and who follow Asimov's First Law of Robotics
Strawman.
On Dec 5, 2007 2:41 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 12:54 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote:
The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule of law.
Seems pretty clear it's anathema on Wikipedia too, based on the general reaction when this came to light. And the secret body in this case didn't even have "authority" in any sort of official sense.
And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases", so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect record of assuming bad faith still applies.
Please, this is so boring. You've said that there's nothing "secret" about what happened (without adding anything new to your argument) over and over again. By now we've either bought it or we haven't.
On Dec 5, 2007 3:06 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 2:41 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 12:54 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote:
The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule of law.
Seems pretty clear it's anathema on Wikipedia too, based on the general reaction when this came to light. And the secret body in this case didn't even have "authority" in any sort of official sense.
And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases", so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect record of assuming bad faith still applies.
Please, this is so boring. You've said that there's nothing "secret" about what happened (without adding anything new to your argument) over and over again. By now we've either bought it or we haven't.
What's boring are continuing snide insinuations. Why don't Bryan and anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy and Slim are lying, if that's what they think, rather than using weaselly innuendo to try to press their point? They should have the courage of their convictions. I'm not prepared to see them use this list as a vehicle for turning bad-faith imputations into accepted fact. There are whole fora devoted to just that purpose, where banned editors and related malcontents spew their venomous groupthink, and where their views will be most welcome. This list is not one of them, and if they keep doing it, I'll continue to call them on it.
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:45:47 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't Bryan and anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy and Slim are lying, if that's what they think
And Jimbo and Jayjg and Crum and David Gerard and FloNight and... well, let's not go right through the subscribers list.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:45:47 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't Bryan and anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy and Slim are lying, if that's what they think
And Jimbo and Jayjg and Crum and David Gerard and FloNight and... well, let's not go right through the subscribers list.
Oh, for crying out loud. My comment was about the public reaction to the _suspicion_ that secret mailing lists were being used to etc. It was meant to rebuke Larry's insinuation that that sort of thing was somehow accepted operating principle here. Whether it actually went on or not is a side issue.
Could you please reread my comments and point out where I'm "insisting" that any particular thing happened or where I'm actually accusing anyone of lying about anything before painting me as Satan incarnate? It was meant as a _defense_ of Wikipedia.
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:41:54 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Oh, for crying out loud. My comment was about the public reaction to the _suspicion_ that secret mailing lists were being used to etc. It was meant to rebuke Larry's insinuation that that sort of thing was somehow accepted operating principle here. Whether it actually went on or not is a side issue.
Fair enough, sorry. I'm feeling very frustrated by the fact that a small group of what I can only think of as deliberate mischief-makers went to the Register and promoted the "evil cabal" meme which, by now, has been very comprehensively rebutted. It is extremely aggravating to receive an endless stream of email telling me how evil Wikipedia is.
On the plus side, the majority of those Register readers who email have, when told the full story, rapidly understood why the list needed to be private and why it was not a critical factor in what was, in the end, simply a piece of jaw-droppingly bad judgment by one admin.
Guy (JzG)
Fair enough, sorry. I'm feeling very frustrated by the fact that a small group of what I can only think of as deliberate mischief-makers went to the Register and promoted the "evil cabal" meme which, by now, has been very comprehensively rebutted.
Maybe people feel it necessary to go outside to air their views, when the "inside" forums tend to greet them with responses like "I think you should shut the fuck up."
Actualy, I don't think anyone did go the register, rather the other way arownd the Register came to me, but I sent them away empty handed. So I would imagine those that did speak were contacted by the Register.
On Dec 6, 2007 3:42 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Fair enough, sorry. I'm feeling very frustrated by the fact that a small group of what I can only think of as deliberate mischief-makers went to the Register and promoted the "evil cabal" meme which, by now, has been very comprehensively rebutted.
Maybe people feel it necessary to go outside to air their views, when the "inside" forums tend to greet them with responses like "I think you should shut the fuck up."
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:42:07 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Maybe people feel it necessary to go outside to air their views, when the "inside" forums tend to greet them with responses like "I think you should shut the fuck up."
Maybe people who incessantly restate their incorrect opinion in the face of repeated rebuttals from people who are plainly much better informed should, well, shut the fuck up.
Guy (JzG)
Guy wrote:
Maybe people who incessantly restate their incorrect opinion in the face of repeated rebuttals from people who are plainly much better informed should, well, shut the fuck up.
Wasn't that attitude (though without the obscenity) basically what Durova was insisting on in the immediate wake of her bad block... that she knew what she was doing, and everybody should just shut up and trust her on it? Look how well *that* worked out...
If you mentally step out of your inner circle for a little bit and see how you appear to others, maybe you'll realize just how arrogant it comes off as. You've got a one-note song, with your iPod set on permanent auto-repeat: Everything that's ever wrong in Wikipedia is always the fault of the evil banned trolls; no criticism ever needs to be treated with anything but contempt, because the critics are enabling the evil trolls. It's all "us vs. them", an attitude that has served to drive me over the last year from being one of the strongest pro-Wikipedia supporters to a pretty intense critic.
On Dec 6, 2007 1:33 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Guy wrote:
Maybe people who incessantly restate their incorrect opinion in the face of repeated rebuttals from people who are plainly much better informed should, well, shut the fuck up.
Wasn't that attitude (though without the obscenity) basically what Durova was insisting on in the immediate wake of her bad block... that she knew what she was doing, and everybody should just shut up and trust her on it?
What "Durova" did wasn't nearly as bad. She refused to provide evidence, but she didn't try to stop people from talking about what evidence was already out there.
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:33:59 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Wasn't that attitude (though without the obscenity) basically what Durova was insisting on in the immediate wake of her bad block... that she knew what she was doing, and everybody should just shut up and trust her on it? Look how well *that* worked out...
I have no idea, and it's of absolutely no relevance whatsoever, because what Alec is doing is repeating things he has been told many, many times are absolutely false. It was understandable if problematic to make incorrect assertions before the facts were presented, but to continue to assert falsehoods after they have been corrected by people who were, unlike Alec, parties to the original exchange, is both trollish and incredibly rude. Essentially Alec is calling Jimbo a liar. And me as well. And that, understandably pisses me off.
You now seem to be saying that the fact that Alec's continued assertion of a falsehood pisses me off is some kind of evidence that I'm part of the problem. Well, no. The problem is people who relentlessly assert falsehoods about others. That is called trolling, and it is damaging to the project. Nobody, especially me, has an unlimited reserve of patience with people who continue to say things that we know, as parties involved from day one *are not true*. We have a terrible tendency as a project to allow endless querulousness but cry "abuse!" when the targets of that querulousness snap back. You don't like it when Giano is criticised for snapping back, and I don't like it when I am. I am not proud of the fact that determined trolling winds me up, but that does not mean that determined trolling is a good thing and I am a bad person.
Alec has been told his interpretation is false. He has been told this by people who were and are on the list and were recipients of the original email. He has been told it many times. He does not believe it. That is his prerogative, but continuing to harp on about it is not.
I would suggest that we create a project page which states the issue in neutral terms, but actually we already have one: the Durova arbitration. I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get.
Guy (JzG)
On 06/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get.
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:55:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get.
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 6, 2007 4:20 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:55:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get.
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
On Dec 6, 2007 4:33 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 4:20 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:55:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get.
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
The cyberstalking list is not archived. It has been stated several times that Durova did not post her e-mail to the investigations list.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:33:19 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
That list had nothing to do with !!, Durova did not send the email there. I don't think it even existed at the time.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 6, 2007 4:58 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:33:19 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
That list had nothing to do with !!, Durova did not send the email there. I don't think it even existed at the time.
I thought your line was that neither list had anything to do with !!.
On Dec 6, 2007 5:16 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 4:58 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:33:19 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
That list had nothing to do with !!, Durova did not send the email there. I don't think it even existed at the time.
I thought your line was that neither list had anything to do with !!.
You too, Anthony, what's your point?
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:16:17 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I thought your line was that neither list had anything to do with !!.
Correct. One list has no archive and had nothing to do with it, the other list apparently has an archive and did not exist at the time and also had nothing to do with it.
Glad to have cleared that one up for you.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 6, 2007 5:35 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:16:17 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I thought your line was that neither list had anything to do with !!.
Correct. One list has no archive and had nothing to do with it, the other list apparently has an archive and did not exist at the time and also had nothing to do with it.
Glad to have cleared that one up for you.
I was already clear on those points, but thanks for clearing it up for others. To make it more clear "at the time" refers presumably to the time that "Durova" sent a message referring !! to the cyberstalking list.
When exactly was the investigations list created, and why?
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:41:08 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
When exactly was the investigations list created, and why?
9 November, and to divert some side-traffic from the rather busy cyberstalking list. The latter has already been stated more than once, the former may have been.
As of now there have been around 3,500 posts to the stalking list and 176 to the investigations list, about half of which are a rather tedious slugfest between two list members who disagree over something or other.
Guy (JzG)
On 07/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
and 176 to the investigations list, about half of which are a rather tedious slugfest between two list members who disagree over something or other.
Sounds like just about every mailing list I've ever been on! :)
On 06/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:55:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get.
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
Unless people keep their own archives which is hardly improbable.
On Dec 6, 2007 4:58 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:55:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get.
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
Unless people keep their own archives which is hardly improbable.
Why would an archive be relevant?
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 4:58 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:55:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get.
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
Unless people keep their own archives which is hardly improbable.
Why would an archive be relevant?
Because archives have this tendency to become public sooner or latter either through error or deliberately. Mod forms on various discussion boards tend to confirm this pattern quite frequently.
On Dec 6, 2007 5:13 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 4:58 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:55:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get.
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
Unless people keep their own archives which is hardly improbable.
Why would an archive be relevant?
Because archives have this tendency to become public sooner or latter either through error or deliberately. Mod forms on various discussion boards tend to confirm this pattern quite frequently.
If true, so what? Can you please try to make a coherent point, rather than the usual one or two-line non-sequiturs?
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:13 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 4:58 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:55:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
> I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation > is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to > accept that it's all they are going to get.
So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
Unless people keep their own archives which is hardly improbable.
Why would an archive be relevant?
Because archives have this tendency to become public sooner or latter either through error or deliberately. Mod forms on various discussion boards tend to confirm this pattern quite frequently.
If true, so what? Can you please try to make a coherent point, rather than the usual one or two-line non-sequiturs?
"but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get"
I'm prepared to wait. Eventually we will get usable data rather than prevarication.
On Dec 6, 2007 5:21 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:13 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 4:58 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:55:24 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
>> I know that Durova's sysop bit and public humiliation >> is not enough for some people, but perhaps they should learn to >> accept that it's all they are going to get.
>So every copy of the list archive has been destroyed?
The list is not archived.
Unless people keep their own archives which is hardly improbable.
Why would an archive be relevant?
Because archives have this tendency to become public sooner or latter either through error or deliberately. Mod forms on various discussion boards tend to confirm this pattern quite frequently.
If true, so what? Can you please try to make a coherent point, rather than the usual one or two-line non-sequiturs?
"but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get"
I'm prepared to wait. Eventually we will get usable data rather than prevarication.
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
What in that case was on the two semi private lists?
On Dec 6, 2007 5:36 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
What in that case was on the two semi private lists?
I have no idea what you are talking about. What are "the two semi-private lists"? If you mean the cyberstalking lists and the investigations list, the purpose of the first is made clear by the signup page. I don't know much about the second.
On Dec 6, 2007 5:40 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:36 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
What in that case was on the two semi private lists?
I have no idea what you are talking about. What are "the two semi-private lists"? If you mean the cyberstalking lists and the investigations list, the purpose of the first is made clear by the signup page. I don't know much about the second.
Were there multiple cyberstalking lists? Is this the CC list? Was this CC list the same one that coordinated the addition of antisocialmedia to the spam blacklist?
On Dec 6, 2007 5:43 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:40 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:36 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
What in that case was on the two semi private lists?
I have no idea what you are talking about. What are "the two semi-private lists"? If you mean the cyberstalking lists and the investigations list, the purpose of the first is made clear by the signup page. I don't know much about the second.
Were there multiple cyberstalking lists?
Huh? I've only heard of one.
Is this the CC list?
What CC list?
Was this CC list the same one that coordinated the addition of antisocialmedia to the spam blacklist?
Why on earth would you imagine that was "co-ordinated"?
On Dec 6, 2007 5:49 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What CC list?
The list of people who communicated via CC: and BCC:, which was the precursor to the cyberstalking list.
Was this CC list the same one that coordinated the addition of antisocialmedia to the spam blacklist?
Why on earth would you imagine that was "co-ordinated"?
Coordinated as in discussed extensively prior to being implemented. If you don't know about the CC list, and don't know that the addition of ASM to the spam blacklist was discussed extensively beforehand, then I guess you don't know the answer to these questions. When you said "cyberstalking lists" I figured you might be referring to this, but I guess you just made a typo.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:49 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What CC list?
The list of people who communicated via CC: and BCC:, which was the precursor to the cyberstalking list.
I can tell you that that list had very little to do with the later cyberstalking list. For example, I was on the CC for that list and was very strongly not invited to the reformed list (apparently I argued with the general consensus too much, and one comment was interpreted by some editors as trolling). While those two lists had a lot of overlap, I don't see how it would help you. Furthermore, there were at least two editors on the cc list who used email addresses they generally keep private. So no, I don't think you'll be getting any list, nor for that matter do I see why you should. Many of the people on the cc never asked to be on the list nor made any comments, and I wouldn't be surprised if the later formed list was very similar.
Why is this list important you anyways? At the risk of throwing more fuel on the fire, this sounds very close to some sort of attempt at guilt-by-association.
On Dec 6, 2007 6:06 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:49 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What CC list?
The list of people who communicated via CC: and BCC:, which was the precursor to the cyberstalking list.
I can tell you that that list had very little to do with the later cyberstalking list. For example, I was on the CC for that list and was very strongly not invited to the reformed list (apparently I argued with the general consensus too much, and one comment was interpreted by some editors as trolling). While those two lists had a lot of overlap, I don't see how it would help you. Furthermore, there were at least two editors on the cc list who used email addresses they generally keep private. So no, I don't think you'll be getting any list, nor for that matter do I see why you should. Many of the people on the cc never asked to be on the list nor made any comments, and I wouldn't be surprised if the later formed list was very similar.
Why is this list important you anyways? At the risk of throwing more fuel on the fire, this sounds very close to some sort of attempt at guilt-by-association.
I think you misunderstood me, because I never asked for the list of email addresses subscribed to any of the lists. As for why the list is important, I don't know whether it is important or not. It's potentially important, but on the other hand it might not be important. Depends on the details which have not yet been made public.
On Dec 6, 2007 6:06 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:49 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What CC list?
The list of people who communicated via CC: and BCC:, which was the precursor to the cyberstalking list.
I can tell you that that list had very little to do with the later cyberstalking list. For example, I was on the CC for that list and was very strongly not invited to the reformed list (apparently I argued with the general consensus too much, and one comment was interpreted by some editors as trolling). While those two lists had a lot of overlap, I don't see how it would help you. Furthermore, there were at least two editors on the cc list who used email addresses they generally keep private. So no, I don't think you'll be getting any list, nor for that matter do I see why you should. Many of the people on the cc never asked to be on the list nor made any comments, and I wouldn't be surprised if the later formed list was very similar.
Why is this list important you anyways? At the risk of throwing more fuel on the fire, this sounds very close to some sort of attempt at guilt-by-association.
This may be the most important question of all.
Durova has shown herself to be a good and honourable editor. There is a belief (true or not) that the block of !! was not an isolated incident, but the result of an atmosphere that simply mislead her into thinking things that were appropriate that weren't. While Durova seems to have realised her error (and certainly increased my esteem for her in the process), it remains worrisome that the circumstances that lead to this mistake are not being discussed so we can avoid it in the future, and that editors are actively inhibiting any honest discussion of how to keep good editors off that path in the future.
Individual blame is not particularly interesting, but what went on to lead up to this is. Ignore history, doomed to repeat it (and so on).
WilyD
On 12/7/07, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 6:06 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
This may be the most important question of all.
Durova has shown herself to be a good and honourable editor. There is a belief (true or not) that the block of !! was not an isolated incident, but the result of an atmosphere that simply mislead her into thinking things that were appropriate that weren't. While Durova seems to have realised her error (and certainly increased my esteem for her in the process), it remains worrisome that the circumstances that lead to this mistake are not being discussed so we can avoid it in the future, and that editors are actively inhibiting any honest discussion of how to keep good editors off that path in the future.
Individual blame is not particularly interesting, but what went on to lead up to this is. Ignore history, doomed to repeat it (and so on).
WilyD
I think WilyD is on the right path here. As a community, we have some responsibility for Durova's error, too. There had been a growing level of discomfort with the way some blocks were being carried out, but we as a group failed to distill this discomfort to the point where we provided the feedback to Durova and other admins that something wasn't quite right here. It was only when her process affected somebody who was widely seen as being exactly the kind of editor Wikipedia needs that the community reacted, and the reaction was swift and quite possibly excessive; more importantly, all that frustration got focused on one person (Durova) instead of the culture that had to that point permitted relatively undiscussed blocks without serious review of the reasons for those blocks.
There are some signs that this message is starting to get through; more admins are bringing blocks to ANI and AN for discussion. Everyone is becoming more sensitive to the fact that good editors and admins are perfectly capable of seeing only trees instead of forests, and that independent outside views really are of benefit. There are more voices at AN and ANI reminding admins that when they are involved in a dispute with another editor, it's better to bring in someone else rather than use the buttons.
These are good things. We need to continue to build on the lessons we all learned, otherwise the situation that harmed the reputation of three valued community members will have had no benefit.
Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:36 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
What in that case was on the two semi private lists?
I have no idea what you are talking about. What are "the two semi-private lists"? If you mean the cyberstalking lists and the investigations list, the purpose of the first is made clear by the signup page. I don't know much about the second.
The purpose is neither here nor there I want to know what went on.
On Dec 7, 2007 12:26 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
I am someone who does not believe there has been significant prevarication beyond what Durova may have committed, and that even is conceivably not prevarication but merely very artfully telling the truth in a misleading way, rather than the real genuine prevarication of telling falsehoods.
But I do have to say that the way you yourself phrase that "straightforward" statement, leaves quite a few things not clear.
If not coördinated on the list, was the posting by Durova an impetus for private correspondance that though (due to its off-topicness) wasn't enacted on-list, nevertheless brought together or just simply in support individually with Durova a group of members of that list in an unofficial task force or whatever... these kind of questions are clearly not exhausted by the "straightforward" statements you mention.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Dec 6, 2007 5:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 12:26 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
I am someone who does not believe there has been significant prevarication beyond what Durova may have committed, and that even is conceivably not prevarication but merely very artfully telling the truth in a misleading way, rather than the real genuine prevarication of telling falsehoods.
But I do have to say that the way you yourself phrase that "straightforward" statement, leaves quite a few things not clear.
If not coördinated on the list, was the posting by Durova an impetus for private correspondance that though (due to its off-topicness) wasn't enacted on-list, nevertheless brought together or just simply in support individually with Durova a group of members of that list in an unofficial task force or whatever... these kind of questions are clearly not exhausted by the "straightforward" statements you mention.
What on earth would private correspondence have to do with the list, and how would anyone possibly know anyway?
On Dec 7, 2007 12:42 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 12:26 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What prevarication? People have straightforwardly stated that !!'s block was not co-ordinated on the cyberstalking list. What is unclear?
I am someone who does not believe there has been significant prevarication beyond what Durova may have committed, and that even is conceivably not prevarication but merely very artfully telling the truth in a misleading way, rather than the real genuine prevarication of telling falsehoods.
But I do have to say that the way you yourself phrase that "straightforward" statement, leaves quite a few things not clear.
If not coördinated on the list, was the posting by Durova an impetus for private correspondance that though (due to its off-topicness) wasn't enacted on-list, nevertheless brought together or just simply in support individually with Durova a group of members of that list in an unofficial task force or whatever... these kind of questions are clearly not exhausted by the "straightforward" statements you mention.
What on earth would private correspondence have to do with the list, and how would anyone possibly know anyway?
The connection would of course only be the origination. Which, if one thinks about it, could have easily been sidestepped by Durova, by simply CC:ing the original e-mail to every subscriber, instead of making an obviously off-topic post to the list. (Unless we are to believe that such postings were the normal fare of the list, which I do not.)
On the question of how can "we" know such a thing, of course in no fashion at all, because it would of course be sealed in high "privacy". Of course, if it did exist, it would be incorrect to say that anyone couldn't know about its existence, because ofcourse the participants would know, and if individual in nature, at the very least Durova would know, though understandably would be bound by the expectation of privacy, which she has already claimed for herself.
Which does to my mind underscore the fact that there will likely always remain things about this affair which will remain "unclear". Which was the direct point I was adressing. Nothing further than that. There are things which we most likely will not know anytime soon, but it is clearly false to say that we know everything there is to know about this affair.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Dec 6, 2007 6:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The connection would of course only be the origination. Which, if one thinks about it, could have easily been sidestepped by Durova, by simply CC:ing the original e-mail to every subscriber, instead of making an obviously off-topic post to the list. (Unless we are to believe that such postings were the normal fare of the list, which I do not.)
The email specifically references "this list" that "they" don't know about, though, and refers to the Miltopia block, so it's hard to believe that alleged problem users had never been discussed on the list before.
On Dec 7, 2007 1:20 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 6:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The connection would of course only be the origination. Which, if one thinks about it, could have easily been sidestepped by Durova, by simply CC:ing the original e-mail to every subscriber, instead of making an obviously off-topic post to the list. (Unless we are to believe that such postings were the normal fare of the list, which I do not.)
The email specifically references "this list" that "they" don't know about, though, and refers to the Miltopia block, so it's hard to believe that alleged problem users had never been discussed on the list before.
No, it is not at all hard to believe, and I do so believe. I do trust many of the people on the list, and think they have better sense than to participate in such behaviour.
The fact that Durova referenced those things, reflects directly on her, not the list. There are many lists that have off-topic posts on them, and a single off-topic post does not tar the entire list.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:21:09 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
"but perhaps they should learn to accept that it's all they are going to get" I'm prepared to wait. Eventually we will get usable data rather than prevarication.
Or rather, eventually you might find out that we've been telling the truth all along. But I'm sure that won't satisfy you.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Wasn't that attitude (though without the obscenity) basically what Durova was insisting on in the immediate wake of her bad block... that she knew what she was doing, and everybody should just shut up and trust her on it? Look how well *that* worked out...
If you mentally step out of your inner circle for a little bit and see how you appear to others, maybe you'll realize just how arrogant it comes off as. You've got a one-note song, with your iPod set on permanent auto-repeat: Everything that's ever wrong in Wikipedia is
Ok, this tone is really wrong for this list. If you want to have a go at someone like this, please do it by private email.
Reminder: This list is for discussion of the English Wikipedia, not discussion of English Wikipedians.
Steve
On 12/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Wasn't that attitude (though without the obscenity) basically what Durova was insisting on in the immediate wake of her bad block... that she knew what she was doing, and everybody should just shut up and trust her on it? Look how well *that* worked out...
If you mentally step out of your inner circle for a little bit and see how you appear to others, maybe you'll realize just how arrogant it comes off as. You've got a one-note song, with your iPod set on permanent auto-repeat: Everything that's ever wrong in Wikipedia is
on 12/6/07 8:27 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, this tone is really wrong for this list. If you want to have a go at someone like this, please do it by private email.
Reminder: This list is for discussion of the English Wikipedia, not discussion of English Wikipedians.
How do YOU separate the two?
Marc
On 07/12/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Reminder: This list is for discussion of the English Wikipedia, not discussion of English Wikipedians.
How do YOU separate the two?
It's a sliding scale sorta thing. Posts about the encyclopedia are pretty obviously about the encyclopedia. Posts about the people probably need a bit more justification. Posts about the list itself are further evidence it's a waste of Foundation disk space and bandwidth and a net negative.
- d.
on 12/7/07 3:35 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/12/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Reminder: This list is for discussion of the English Wikipedia, not discussion of English Wikipedians.
How do YOU separate the two?
It's a sliding scale sorta thing. Posts about the encyclopedia are pretty obviously about the encyclopedia. Posts about the people probably need a bit more justification. Posts about the list itself are further evidence it's a waste of Foundation disk space and bandwidth and a net negative.
- d.
David, I'm truly not trying to be argumentative here, but this is the English Wikipedia Mailing List involving subjects relevant to that Project. Wouldn't that mean all three (the encyclopedia, it's people, and this List) would be proper subjects for discussion?
Marc
On 07/12/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 12/7/07 3:35 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's a sliding scale sorta thing. Posts about the encyclopedia are pretty obviously about the encyclopedia. Posts about the people probably need a bit more justification. Posts about the list itself are further evidence it's a waste of Foundation disk space and bandwidth and a net negative.
David, I'm truly not trying to be argumentative here, but this is the English Wikipedia Mailing List involving subjects relevant to that Project. Wouldn't that mean all three (the encyclopedia, it's people, and this List) would be proper subjects for discussion?
Yes, of course, though (judging by recent traffic) in decreasing order of likely productiveness.
- d.
Hey! We really, really *don't* need to turn this into another Durova thread, ok? Can everyone who doesn't want to respond to Larry's post go and post somewhere else, preferably entitled ("Another pointless Durova thread"). Thanks.
Steve
Please, this is so boring. You've said that there's nothing "secret" about what happened (without adding anything new to your argument) over and over again. By now we've either bought it or we haven't.
Why don't Bryan and anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy and Slim are lying, if that's what they think
And Jimbo and Jayjg and Crum and David Gerard and FloNight and... well, let's not go right through the subscribers list.