A good idea, flawed in execution. Now taken down due to legal threats.
Guy (JzG)
could you elborate a but more? the links don't really say shit.
On 7/13/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A good idea, flawed in execution. Now taken down due to legal threats.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
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 7/13/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A good idea, flawed in execution. Now taken down due to legal threats.
If that's how things work, maybe you should threaten to sue Daniel Brandt.
—C.W.
I'm sure Brandt is atleast smart enough to see through threats. Maybe you should stop threatening and get a TRO or sue?
On 7/13/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A good idea, flawed in execution. Now taken down due to legal threats.
If that's how things work, maybe you should threaten to sue Daniel Brandt.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Guy,
A good idea, flawed in execution. Now taken down due to legal threats.
If it's true --- and I'd like a lot more detail before I concede such a point --- then this is Terrible. What slimy coward thought it appropriate to threaten WA?
Oh, I dunno, some slimy coward who's good intentioned works on wikipedia, and possibly their actual person, was being slandered by anonymous blowhards accountable to no one.
On 7/13/07, Mark Gallagher fuddlemark@gmail.com wrote:
G'day Guy,
A good idea, flawed in execution. Now taken down due to legal threats.
If it's true --- and I'd like a lot more detail before I concede such a point --- then this is Terrible. What slimy coward thought it appropriate to threaten WA?
-- Mark Gallagher "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Steven,
(Top-posting fixed. Please don't do it again.)
On 7/13/07, Mark Gallagher fuddlemark@gmail.com wrote:
G'day Guy,
A good idea, flawed in execution. Now taken down due to legal threats.
If it's true --- and I'd like a lot more detail before I concede such a point --- then this is Terrible. What slimy coward thought it appropriate to threaten WA?
Oh, I dunno, some slimy coward who's good intentioned works on wikipedia, and possibly their actual person, was being slandered by anonymous blowhards accountable to no one.
Strikes me that the same argument has been made by WR and WA fans, notably including Daniel Brandt[0]. It was a poorly-thought and inappropriate argument then, and it's a poorly-thought and inappropriate argument now.
Did you actually read WA at all? It attempted to be a kindler, gentler attack site. It gave me the willies, being run by a known dickhead, but it was easy to see that: a) it was doing no harm, and b) if its stated intentions were genuine[1], it could actually be a Force For Good.
What on WA was lawsuit-worthy, and why are we not to know who was involved? I can think of two possibilities, but perhaps there are more. One is that Joe is lying about the lawsuit, a distinct possibility (but one that doesn't excuse your defence of such a suit). The other is that whoever threatened him also insisted that he not name them, hence: that party is a "slimy coward".
[0] If you talk about slanderous anonymous blowhards, there are people out there --- more than you'd think --- who would assume the phrase best refers to Wikipedians. They wouldn't always be wrong, either.
[1] I've yet to see an anti-Wikipedia site actually tell the truth about its intentions, but I'm willing to accept that maybe, just maybe, Joe was genuine here. He never got the chance to show us ...
"a kindlier, gentler attack site"? That's supposed to be a defence? It's like saying some Nazis weren't as bad as Goering.
I'm not defending the validity of the lawsuit. What I was criticizing is an attack on those who criticise a site built for the express purpose of criticism. Saying that WA has the right to snipe at every little action taken by admins, and then calling those who give equally harsh criticism of WA "cowards" is obvious hypocrisy. Aren't the cowards those who build an entire separate, anonymous apparatus for taking potshots (even useful ones) at admins the cowards? Why not have some balls and try and affect a real, lasting change from within Wikipedia, rather than running away and creating a space for disgruntled users to tell their sob story without any opportunity for rebuttal?
On 7/13/07, Mark Gallagher fuddlemark@gmail.com wrote:
G'day Steven,
(Top-posting fixed. Please don't do it again.)
On 7/13/07, Mark Gallagher fuddlemark@gmail.com wrote:
G'day Guy,
A good idea, flawed in execution. Now taken down due to legal threats.
If it's true --- and I'd like a lot more detail before I concede such a point --- then this is Terrible. What slimy coward thought it appropriate to threaten WA?
Oh, I dunno, some slimy coward who's good intentioned works on wikipedia, and possibly their actual person, was being slandered by anonymous blowhards accountable to no one.
Strikes me that the same argument has been made by WR and WA fans, notably including Daniel Brandt[0]. It was a poorly-thought and inappropriate argument then, and it's a poorly-thought and inappropriate argument now.
Did you actually read WA at all? It attempted to be a kindler, gentler attack site. It gave me the willies, being run by a known dickhead, but it was easy to see that: a) it was doing no harm, and b) if its stated intentions were genuine[1], it could actually be a Force For Good.
What on WA was lawsuit-worthy, and why are we not to know who was involved? I can think of two possibilities, but perhaps there are more. One is that Joe is lying about the lawsuit, a distinct possibility (but one that doesn't excuse your defence of such a suit). The other is that whoever threatened him also insisted that he not name them, hence: that party is a "slimy coward".
[0] If you talk about slanderous anonymous blowhards, there are people out there --- more than you'd think --- who would assume the phrase best refers to Wikipedians. They wouldn't always be wrong, either.
[1] I've yet to see an anti-Wikipedia site actually tell the truth about its intentions, but I'm willing to accept that maybe, just maybe, Joe was genuine here. He never got the chance to show us ...
-- Mark Gallagher "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steven Walling wrote:
"a kindlier, gentler attack site"? That's supposed to be a defence? It's like saying some Nazis weren't as bad as Goering.
It triggered my sarcasm meter. Perhaps yours needs a bit of recalibration. :p
I'm not defending the validity of the lawsuit. What I was criticizing is an attack on those who criticise a site built for the express purpose of criticism. Saying that WA has the right to snipe at every little action taken by admins, and then calling those who give equally harsh criticism of WA "cowards" is obvious hypocrisy. Aren't the cowards those who build an entire separate, anonymous apparatus for taking potshots (even useful ones) at admins the cowards? Why not have some balls and try and affect a real, lasting change from within Wikipedia, rather than running away and creating a space for disgruntled users to tell their sob story without any opportunity for rebuttal?
Personally, I think that Rootology had an excellent idea, but poor execution of that idea. He was, however, at least making an attempt to keep the bullshit down - and the bullshit was being flung from both sides.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Rootology did have the balls to "try and affect a real, lasting change from within Wikipedia", and he was banned for "trolling" as a result of that . So he set up a secondary site designed to try and affect a change, using a clear identity. He executed it poorly, but I have no doubt that he genuinely did have good intentions behind it.
On 7/13/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
"a kindlier, gentler attack site"? That's supposed to be a defence? It's like saying some Nazis weren't as bad as Goering.
I'm not defending the validity of the lawsuit. What I was criticizing is an attack on those who criticise a site built for the express purpose of criticism. Saying that WA has the right to snipe at every little action taken by admins, and then calling those who give equally harsh criticism of WA "cowards" is obvious hypocrisy. Aren't the cowards those who build an entire separate, anonymous apparatus for taking potshots (even useful ones) at admins the cowards? Why not have some balls and try and affect a real, lasting change from within Wikipedia, rather than running away and creating a space for disgruntled users to tell their sob story without any opportunity for rebuttal?
Well, sorta out of order...
It really wasn't any more or less anonymous than Wikipedia is.
It's always useful for groups to have useful external criticism, and avenues for that to happen. It's not cowardly for some people to go do that; it's necessary for there to be gadflys and external critics for the group to succeed in the long term. The "either play in our sandbox or go home" attitude is pretty naive... it won't happen that way, and should not.
WA was, when I was watching, making no small effort to keep the discussion at an adult level.
George Herbert wrote:
On 7/13/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not defending the validity of the lawsuit. What I was criticizing is an attack on those who criticise a site built for the express purpose of criticism. Saying that WA has the right to snipe at every little action taken by admins, and then calling those who give equally harsh criticism of WA "cowards" is obvious hypocrisy. Aren't the cowards those who build an entire separate, anonymous apparatus for taking potshots (even useful ones) at admins the cowards? Why not have some balls and try and affect a real, lasting change from within Wikipedia, rather than running away and creating a space for disgruntled users to tell their sob story without any opportunity for rebuttal?
Well, sorta out of order...
It really wasn't any more or less anonymous than Wikipedia is.
It's always useful for groups to have useful external criticism, and avenues for that to happen. It's not cowardly for some people to go do that; it's necessary for there to be gadflys and external critics for the group to succeed in the long term. The "either play in our sandbox or go home" attitude is pretty naive... it won't happen that way, and should not.
Exactly. What the whiners seem to forget is that to be one of the top 10 websites means that we are BIG. That means learning to live with criticism, even unjust criticism. Anyone who feels personally offended still has the right to take legal action, but that is seldom cost effective on a global scale. Whining and trying to put up more rules to deal with the problem people is at best ineffective. What's worse about that is that it imposes a lot more restrictions on editors who would never dream of committing these offences, and those rules retain a persistance long after the offenders are gone.
Ec
On 14/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
"a kindlier, gentler attack site"? That's supposed to be a defence? It's like saying some Nazis weren't as bad as Goering.
Wow. WMFGC's Law has rarely been proved true so quickly.
On 7/14/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not defending the validity of the lawsuit. What I was criticizing is an attack on those who criticise a site built for the express purpose of criticism.
There's nothing wrong with a site built for the express purpose of criticism (as long as it does in fact engage in criticism).
And stop top posting. See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
On 7/14/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
"a kindlier, gentler attack site"? That's supposed to be a defence? It's like saying some Nazis weren't as bad as Goering.
Umm did you really just compare criticising wikipedians with killing a few million Jews and starting one of the bloodiest wars ever?
On 14/07/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
"a kindlier, gentler attack site"? That's supposed to be a defence? It's like saying some Nazis weren't as bad as Goering.
Umm did you really just compare criticising wikipedians with killing a few million Jews and starting one of the bloodiest wars ever?
It's OK! Wikipedia is already over.
- d.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:58:39 +1000, Mark Gallagher fuddlemark@gmail.com wrote:
Did you actually read WA at all? It attempted to be a kindler, gentler attack site. It gave me the willies, being run by a known dickhead, but it was easy to see that: a) it was doing no harm, and b) if its stated intentions were genuine[1], it could actually be a Force For Good.
Yes. But there was one fatal flaw: the burden of proof was reversed, so that grudge bearers could insert whatever the hell they liked, and the "rouge admin" then had to prove they were right by reference, in many cases, to things which the WA crown could not see, often for excellent reasons (deleted attack pages, for example).
As an assumption of bad faith, it was problematic, as an assumption of bad faith with most of the power given to idiots like Jonathan Barber (JB196), who screams "abuse!" every time we block one of his hundreds of socks, and screams even louder when he says it was not him. The idea of going away and thus preventing any of this purported collateral damage is simply not on his agenda. So I can't say I'm sorry to see it go. Rootology is, I believe, sincere in wanting Wikipedia to be better, but a good number of the contributors are sincere only in wanting to pretend that their being booted for rampant self-promotion and idiocy was somehow not appropriate.
The prize piece for me is the idea that I, personally, am sexist because I do not recognise that there are any major women composers of opera. See if you can identify the statement in this arbitration case that "proves" I am a sexist and absolutely demands an apology, lack of which apology "proves" that I am an /unrepentant/ sexist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry...
Guy (JzG)