On 9 Apr 2007 at 06:21:34 -0700, "Denny Colt" wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Or not go out of our way to endorse a website that seeks to do material harm to us, Dan. Your a regular there, are you not?
What do you post about there? Do you ask them to shut down threads such as "Who is Jayjg?" and so forth? Or just hang out with the zealots that are trying to unearth everyone's identity?
The above is an ad-hominem statement about me rather than a logical argument in favor of your proposal or against any of my arguments regarding it.
But, to answer your questions, yes, I did register an account on The Site That Must Not Be Named, with the motive that they were criticizing me by name over there and I wished to be able to respond. I also wanted (perhaps foolishly) to engage those people in debate from a pro-Wikipedia perspective in an attempt to balance the often rabidly anti-Wikipedia stance that tends to be found there.
Since I don't censor myself well enough for their "standards", and they are known to judge people on their speech and actions elsewhere and not just on their own site, I was at one point banned from posting to their site, and might be re-banned at any point that they decide to do so.
On 4/9/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Since I don't censor myself well enough for their "standards", and they are known to judge people on their speech and actions elsewhere and not just on their own site, I was at one point banned from posting to their site, and might be re-banned at any point that they decide to do so.
I do find it very entertaining that Wikipedia Review bans people for thoughtcrime so easily, given their constant criticism of Wikipedia 'censoring' things - and that so many contributors use pseudonyms yet believe Wikipedia editors should be known.
-Matt
On Monday 09 April 2007 19:20, Matthew Brown wrote:
I do find it very entertaining that Wikipedia Review bans people for thoughtcrime so easily, given their constant criticism of Wikipedia 'censoring' things
I'd agree with you except I don't actually see that happening.
- and that so many contributors use pseudonyms yet
believe Wikipedia editors should be known.
Not really...their reasons for wanting real names on Wikipedia don't really have relevance to WR or, in fact, any web discussion forum.
On 4/9/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
I'd agree with you except I don't actually see that happening.
- and that so many contributors use pseudonyms yet
believe Wikipedia editors should be known.
Not really...their reasons for wanting real names on Wikipedia don't really have relevance to WR or, in fact, any web discussion forum.
They think people should be personally responsible for what they write about other people. They believe that hiding behind pseudonyms is damaging because it removes personal responsibility and accountability.
And yet they write some very damaging things, including stuff that is offensive and some that is libellous, about Wikipedia editors.
I feel that if the person doing that is hiding behind a pseudonym, they are a hypocrite.
-Matt
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 06:45, Matthew Brown wrote:
On 4/9/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
I'd agree with you except I don't actually see that happening.
- and that so many contributors use pseudonyms yet
believe Wikipedia editors should be known.
Not really...their reasons for wanting real names on Wikipedia don't really have relevance to WR or, in fact, any web discussion forum.
They think people should be personally responsible for what they write about other people. They believe that hiding behind pseudonyms is damaging because it removes personal responsibility and accountability.
When it's presented as a generally accepted fact, rather than a single individual's opinion, then yeah.
And yet they write some very damaging things, including stuff that is offensive and some that is libellous, about Wikipedia editors.
Except on WR (or any other web discussion forum) it's only presented as a single individual's opinion.
I feel that if the person doing that is hiding behind a pseudonym, they are a hypocrite.
As a point of fact, I don't agree with their stance, but there's nothing hypocritical about it.