-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 08:19 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
I seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here, despite a lot of head-scratching.
Myself neither.
So what is the disagreement about, in practice? Is it that one side wants a hard-line rule that can be imposed selectively?
I'll tell you what I've seen, since I've been arguing this for a while. One side thinks that attack site links may be removed 100% of the time, a zero tolerance policy. Another site thinks that attack site links are usually bad, but there may be rare circumstances where they are needed, and that they should be decided case by case.
The first side, however, has now moderated their rhetoric and sounds exactly like the second.
My impression is that the zero-tolerance side actually wants zero tolerance for certain particular web sites, and the Teresa Nielsen Hayden situation caught them by surprise. Thus, they now claim "we don't support zero tolerance" when the truth is that they don't care about TNH but still want zero tolerance for WR and ED.
That's correct.
Fred
On 5/29/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net] My impression is that the zero-tolerance side actually wants zero tolerance for certain particular web sites, and the Teresa Nielsen Hayden situation caught them by surprise. Thus, they now claim "we don't support zero tolerance" when the truth is that they don't care about TNH but still want zero tolerance for WR and ED.
That's correct.
Fred
Indeed. Ken, that's what we've been arguing from the start. No links to purpose-built attack sites, the ones that do little else.
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. Ken, that's what we've been arguing from the start. No links to purpose-built attack sites, the ones that do little else.
Isn't that limited really to just one website (that I know of, without naming names) unarguably, and two that people are pretty regularly arguing the point over? Unless in all my time around these parts I've been completely oblivious to the hordes of vengeful attacking and outing sites, and someone wants to clarify for me by private email, but I only know of "3" such sites according to possibly somebody's definition.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/29/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. Ken, that's what we've been arguing from the start. No links to purpose-built attack sites, the ones that do little else.
Isn't that limited really to just one website (that I know of, without naming names) unarguably, and two that people are pretty regularly arguing the point over?
I can think of five, and there's a webpage associated with one of them, so that's six.
We should use whatever is worth using no matter where it appears, and link to whatever is worth linking to no matter where.
The concern is in drawing additional attention to sites that are harmful overall. But, as with all such attempts, our attempt to deny the links has attracted more attention than the links would have. If those sites are our enemies, we have provided them with the perfect material to make us appear ridiculous. The normal response of an outsider seeing the discussion will be to try to find the actual attack pages, and thus we are adding yet more to the harm they do.
This will always be the case with a free speech environment. Whatever the harm may be from further publicity, we cannot prevent it, and anything we now do will only add to it. We are letting them destroy us. All further attempts to eliminate links to non-harmful pages on these sites will strengthen the sites yet more.
SV does present us with a serious problem, but there is no solution for it. Adopting her proposed solution will make her problem worse--she may be too close to it to consider it objectively. It is understandable to hope for a remedy, but the only way of deflecting interest from the old is the inevitable appearance of new.
DGG David Goodman
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. Ken, that's what we've been arguing from the start. No links to purpose-built attack sites, the ones that do little else.
Isn't that limited really to just one website (that I know of, without naming names) unarguably, and two that people are pretty regularly arguing the point over?
I can think of five, and there's a webpage associated with one of them, so that's six.
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 30/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
SV does present us with a serious problem, but there is no solution for it. Adopting her proposed solution will make her problem worse--she may be too close to it to consider it objectively. It is understandable to hope for a remedy, but the only way of deflecting interest from the old is the inevitable appearance of new.
The problem also has nothing to do with admin tools, so using an RFA to push the alleged solution is utterly inappropriate.
- d.
On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The problem also has nothing to do with admin tools, so using an RFA to push the alleged solution is utterly inappropriate.
Well, this is a good point. And as it happens, all three of the incidents that set everyone on their ears were perpetrated by ordinary editors.
Actually, no. The last deletion of the THN sites was done by an admin.
Risker
On 5/29/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The problem also has nothing to do with admin tools, so using an RFA to push the alleged solution is utterly inappropriate.
Well, this is a good point. And as it happens, all three of the incidents that set everyone on their ears were perpetrated by ordinary editors.
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 5/29/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, no. The last deletion of the THN sites was done by an admin.
True; I was under the mistaken impression that Will Beback was not an admin; nonetheless, it is the case that these erasures have all been ordinary edits.
On 5/29/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The problem also has nothing to do with admin tools, so using an RFA to push the alleged solution is utterly inappropriate.
Well, this is a good point. And as it happens, all three of the incidents that set everyone on their ears were perpetrated by ordinary editors.
This notion that admins must agree with everyone and know policy like the
back of their hand is bullshit of the highest order.
And yet more good points. What a personal act of sabotage against one potential administrator, though. I don't think it was about the attack sites at all, simply an agenda to puddle vitriole--kinda like a personal attack site on Wikipedia, in a way. Maybe *this* attack site should have been banned from the RfA.
And don't post links to Wikipedia editor outings on this list, please, or request it here. What's the purpose?
KP
A major part of the problem in all of this is that the relentless battle against links to these sites has meant in practice a discussion composed entirely of unsupported allegations. And maybe the links shouldn't appear, but then the allegations shouldn't be made either. For instance, someone has said, apparently without proof that I can find, that Gracenotes was a participant on WR. This appears to be false, but it cannot be shown either way without real references to the site. The whole discussion has been profoundly polluted with dubious allegations of malicious motives.
If people wanted to put forth a list of banned sites, it could be discussed. Of course, that would attract attention to these sites. But as long as this is based on certain criteria, it's a certainty that naive or wicked editors are going to involve other "innocent" sites, because it's a certainty that outsiders, believing that the identities of editors and admins DOES matter, are going to expose those identities.
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Indeed. Ken, that's what we've been arguing from the start. No links to purpose-built attack sites, the ones that do little else.
Isn't that limited really to just one website (that I know of, without naming names) unarguably, and two that people are pretty regularly arguing the point over?
It is limited to three sites; the trouble is that a zero tolerance policy still has the problems of a zero tolerance policy. There are some reasons why we might want to link to even those three sites. They may be rare reasons, but they are not nonexistent reasons. Removing the link from Wikipedia Signpost and removing the links from the attack sites discussion are bad ideas, and a zero tolerance policy leaves no room for such unusual cases.
On 30/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Indeed. Ken, that's what we've been arguing from the start. No links to purpose-built attack sites, the ones that do little else.
Isn't that limited really to just one website (that I know of, without naming names) unarguably, and two that people are pretty regularly arguing the point over?
It is limited to three sites; the trouble is that a zero tolerance policy still has the problems of a zero tolerance policy. There are some reasons why we might want to link to even those three sites. They may be rare reasons, but they are not nonexistent reasons. Removing the link from Wikipedia Signpost and removing the links from the attack sites discussion are bad ideas, and a zero tolerance policy leaves no room for such unusual cases.
Perhaps if we mandate {{spoiler}} tags around each mention ... ;-p
- d.
On Wed, 30 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
It is limited to three sites; the trouble is that a zero tolerance policy still has the problems of a zero tolerance policy. There are some reasons why we might want to link to even those three sites. They may be rare reasons, but they are not nonexistent reasons. Removing the link from Wikipedia Signpost and removing the links from the attack sites discussion are bad ideas, and a zero tolerance policy leaves no room for such unusual cases.
Perhaps if we mandate {{spoiler}} tags around each mention ... ;-p
By the anti-spoiler crowd's reasoning, we could just refuse to ban links to attack sites on the grounds that deciding whether something is an attack site constitutes original research.
On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
It is limited to three sites; the trouble is that a zero tolerance
policy still
has the problems of a zero tolerance policy. There are some reasons
why we
might want to link to even those three sites. They may be rare
reasons, but
they are not nonexistent reasons. Removing the link from Wikipedia
Signpost
and removing the links from the attack sites discussion are bad ideas,
and a
zero tolerance policy leaves no room for such unusual cases.
Perhaps if we mandate {{spoiler}} tags around each mention ... ;-p
By the anti-spoiler crowd's reasoning, we could just refuse to ban links to attack sites on the grounds that deciding whether something is an attack site constitutes original research.
What ? Using {{spoiler}} is original research in a large number of cases because there is no solid point of reference for what someone could consider surprising, let alone an unwanted surprise. (If there are sources which explicitly classify things as spoilers, it's a different story; for instance, iMDB has done a great job by sectioning its trivia and goofs into non-spoiler and spoiler sections, so there is some objective reference for what constitutes a spoiler.)
On the other hand, we have firm criteria for what would be an attack site - a site devoted to outing the identities of anonymous Wikipedians, or a site devoted to libeling Wikipedia editors is unambiguously such a site. Determining what a spoiler is is often nowhere as easy.
Johnleemk
On Wed, 30 May 2007, John Lee wrote:
On the other hand, we have firm criteria for what would be an attack site - a site devoted to outing the identities of anonymous Wikipedians, or a site devoted to libeling Wikipedia editors is unambiguously such a site.
The Tersa Nielsen Hayden situation pretty much demonstrates that the attack site criteria are not firm or unambiguous.
On 30/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, John Lee wrote:
On the other hand, we have firm criteria for what would be an attack site - a site devoted to outing the identities of anonymous Wikipedians, or a site devoted to libeling Wikipedia editors is unambiguously such a site.
The Tersa Nielsen Hayden situation pretty much demonstrates that the attack site criteria are not firm or unambiguous.
I think it more demonstrated the disparity between the failed attack site policy's supporter's reasonable words and unreasonable actions.
- d.