Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:47:28 +1000 From: Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Violation of Blocking Policy To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID:
432BCA10.6050306@student.canberra.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
charset=UTF-8
"Now, if you double-check [[WP:BLOCK]], you may find that editors who exhaust the patience of the community by
demonstrating >an unwillingness
to work well with others ... may be blocked.
Throughout life, any policy of judging people by their success in working well with others, is a blank cheque for bullying and for it to win. If the mob for its own reasons agrees not to work well with a targetted individual, the solitary victim gets the blame. Bullypedia proved conclusively.
and "In the cases where multiple parties violate the
rule, sysops should treat all sides equally."
Wow, isn't this a revelation, after all the admin voices here who have denied there is any obligation to equality and said "You are not entitled to anything", and after my political purging was directly for the offence of arguing that any entitlements to equality exist.
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Throughout life, any policy of judging people by their success in working well with others, is a blank cheque for bullying and for it to win.
Oh, perhaps. But working well with others is critical to a person's success in a collaborative process like Wikipedia. Nobody gives a rat's ass what you're like in the "real world"; you may be an incredibly skilled or talented person with a huge amount to offer the world -- but if you can't work well collaboratively in the context of Wikipedia, then you'll run into a wall of utter resistance on Wikipedia. It's hardly bullying when you come to a place when you come to a place where cooperation is required by the community, refuse to cooperate, and are ostracized.
Any "judging" that has occurred has to be understood as applying only within the context of the universe of Wikipedia editors.
jpgordon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpgordon*∇∆∇∆*
MAURICE FRANK wrote:
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:47:28 +1000 From: Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Violation of Blocking Policy To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID:
432BCA10.6050306@student.canberra.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
charset=UTF-8
"Now, if you double-check [[WP:BLOCK]], you may find that editors who exhaust the patience of the community by
demonstrating >an unwillingness
to work well with others ... may be blocked.
Throughout life, any policy of judging people by their success in working well with others, is a blank cheque for bullying and for it to win.
You know, this is the first intelligent thing I've seen you say. However, it's still pretty much indispensible for a project like Wikipedia, whatever its drawbacks. And considering the relatively high level of tolerance Wikipedia has shown to social outcasts up to and including Nazis and pedophiles, I really, really think you need to give your head a shake if you think Wikipedia is especially bad in this regard.
If the mob for its own reasons agrees not to work well with a targetted individual, the solitary victim gets the blame. Bullypedia proved conclusively.
This word, "prove", you use it so much. I do not think it means what you think it means.
and "In the cases where multiple parties violate the
rule, sysops should treat all sides equally."
Wow, isn't this a revelation, after all the admin voices here who have denied there is any obligation to equality and said "You are not entitled to anything", and after my political purging was directly for the offence of arguing that any entitlements to equality exist.
And now you're right back to the sort of behaviour that contributed to getting you perma-blocked... quoting out of context, crying victim at every turn, accusing your opponents of some bizarre political agenda (as opposed to asking you - in some cases far more nicely than you deserved - to remove blatantly non-neutral material and cite sources, which is what actually happened), lying your ass off about what Wikipedia's policies are...
Throughout life, any policy of judging people by their success in working well with others, is a blank cheque for bullying and for it to win.
Unfortunately all alternatives end up with a peer evaluating you...
If the mob for its own reasons agrees not to work well with a targetted individual, the solitary victim gets the blame.
If you're referring to wikipedia, then of course this is going to happen because beneath all the glittery stuff it is just another private company.
Bullypedia proved conclusively.
Well... uh... the point is that you don't HAVE to come to wikipedia. You can start your own wiki, go to another community etc.. Heaven knows there are many out there.
and "In the cases where multiple parties violate the
rule, sysops should treat all sides equally."
Wow, isn't this a revelation, after all the admin voices here who have denied there is any obligation to equality and said "You are not entitled to anything",
That's a rather loose argument there :).
and after my political purging was directly for the offence of arguing that any entitlements to equality exist.
Po*lit*i*cal pur*ging 1. Personal Attacks 2. Legal Threats 3. Linkspam 4. Edit warring to keep the linkspam in
Thanks, RN
"In the cases where multiple parties violate the
rule, sysops should treat all sides equally."
Wow, isn't this a revelation, after all the admin voices here who have denied there is any obligation to equality and said "You are not entitled to anything",
I must have missed this. I did not notice or investigate anyone else excessively reverting the article. If I did, I would have treated them equally.