-----Original Message----- From: Oleg Alexandrov [mailto:mathbot@hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org] Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 09:04 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 01:15:26PM +0000, Fred Bauder wrote:
Generally speaking we don't include stuff that is made up; unless it crosses the notability threshold. This might, but does not seem to yet.
I am not talking about including this in articles. I am talking about people removing any mention of this from talk pages, not just the link to the attack site, nothing, nothing at all containing the words "SlimVirgin" and "news" is allowed to stand.
I understand that such discussion may be off-topic on Wikipedia, but how far should people go to purge any mention on this from the site? This is not about notability anymore, not about protecting the feelings of an editor, it is about some Wikipedians using the policy of attack sites to censor and delete any discussions on the topic.
But is there anything to it? Or is it just nasty gossip? If you want to gossip, join the Navy.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
But is there anything to it? Or is it just nasty gossip? If you want to gossip, join the Navy.
There's a fine line to be trodden here. Certainly, we don't want or need to dignify wild rumors with any attention at all. But once a story "has legs" (and whether it deserves them or not), too-strenuous attempts to deny it only fuel the speculations that there *is* a cabal and a cover-up -- and those speculations can end up driving more long-term damage than the original, spurious accusation would have.
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375. (And there may have been other reverters, sorry if I left you out, but evidently this issue has become so "serious" that [[User talk:SlimVirgin]] has had a bunch of its history deleted.)
On 7/29/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
But is there anything to it? Or is it just nasty gossip? If you want to gossip, join the Navy.
There's a fine line to be trodden here. Certainly, we don't want or need to dignify wild rumors with any attention at all. But once a story "has legs" (and whether it deserves them or not), too-strenuous attempts to deny it only fuel the speculations that there *is* a cabal and a cover-up -- and those speculations can end up driving more long-term damage than the original, spurious accusation would have.
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375. (And there may have been other reverters, sorry if I left you out, but evidently this issue has become so "serious" that [[User talk:SlimVirgin]] has had a bunch of its history deleted.)
There are some questions that remain, though. Like why would it be discussed on Wikipedia, along the lines of why discuss every lame hate site that ever put 'clopedia' after a grunt and spewed venom about some other race/religion or whatever on this list?
In what manner and for what purpose is it being discussed on Wikipedia? People's talk pages aren't their personal blogs. And article talk pages are to discuss articles. Is this news? What newspapers has it been reported in? Is it ever going to be real news?
Of course, Steve has an excellent point in that deleting every mention of it is drawing more attention to the incident than it merits. I don't even know what slashdot is, and now the need to delete it everywhere has piqued my curiosity.
Trying to shut people up often backfires, because those doing it can reach a point where they're not evaluating what is going on to the detriment of their success at stopping the topic. The idea behind shutting someone up is to stop the talk, and calling a greater amount of attention to your attempt to shut them up, than was ever given to the talkers, just increases the gossip, it doesn't stop anything.
KP
On 7/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
But is there anything to it? Or is it just nasty gossip? If you want to gossip, join the Navy.
There's a fine line to be trodden here. Certainly, we don't want or need to dignify wild rumors with any attention at all. But once a story "has legs" (and whether it deserves them or not), too-strenuous attempts to deny it only fuel the speculations that there *is* a cabal and a cover-up -- and those speculations can end up driving more long-term damage than the original, spurious accusation would have.
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375. (And there may have been other reverters, sorry if I left you out, but evidently this issue has become so "serious" that [[User talk:SlimVirgin]] has had a bunch of its history deleted.)
There are some questions that remain, though. Like why would it be discussed on Wikipedia, along the lines of why discuss every lame hate site that ever put 'clopedia' after a grunt and spewed venom about some other race/religion or whatever on this list?
In what manner and for what purpose is it being discussed on Wikipedia? People's talk pages aren't their personal blogs. And article talk pages are to discuss articles. Is this news? What newspapers has it been reported in? Is it ever going to be real news?
Not everyone reads the mailing list/Slashdot and may want to enquire about rumours they've heard. I would rather that they heard about these ridiculous allegations from Wikipedians on Wikipedia, rather than on some other website because self-righteous Wikipedians decide any mention whatsoever of the claims is ridiculous.
Johnleemk
On 7/29/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
But is there anything to it? Or is it just nasty gossip? If you want to gossip, join the Navy.
There's a fine line to be trodden here. Certainly, we don't want or need to dignify wild rumors with any attention at all. But once a story "has legs" (and whether it deserves them or not), too-strenuous attempts to deny it only fuel the speculations that there *is* a cabal and a cover-up -- and those speculations can end up driving more long-term damage than the original, spurious accusation would have.
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375. (And there may have been other reverters, sorry if I left you out, but evidently this issue has become so "serious" that [[User talk:SlimVirgin]] has had a bunch of its history deleted.)
There are some questions that remain, though. Like why would it be discussed on Wikipedia, along the lines of why discuss every lame hate site that ever put 'clopedia' after a grunt and spewed venom about some other race/religion or whatever on this list?
In what manner and for what purpose is it being discussed on Wikipedia? People's talk pages aren't their personal blogs. And article talk pages are to discuss articles. Is this news? What newspapers has it been reported in? Is it ever going to be real news?
Not everyone reads the mailing list/Slashdot and may want to enquire about rumours they've heard. I would rather that they heard about these ridiculous allegations from Wikipedians on Wikipedia, rather than on some other website because self-righteous Wikipedians decide any mention whatsoever of the claims is ridiculous.
Johnleemk
Yes, I can see that honest dialogue about accusations against Wikipedia might be a reason for discussing the issue on Wikipedia. Good point.
KP
On 7/29/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.
You honestly think that if she said it was false, everyone would go away and leave her alone, and all the trolling and stalking would stop?
If I were in Slim's position, I would make no comment either. You don't start answering some of the stalkers' questions, knowing that there will be more later. Remember that they have found various "identities" for her, and are still looking. Presumably, they'll come up with a few more in the next year. What is she supposed to do? Make a statement on this occasion, and keep silence when they actually guess right?
Q. Is it true that your name is Melissa Davenport? A. No, that's false.
Q. Is it true that your name is Marjorie Simpson? A. No, that's false.
Q. Is it true that your name is Jennifer Collins? A. I refuse to say.
What kind of impression would that give?
E
ElinorD wrote:
On 7/29/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.
You honestly think that if she said it was false, everyone would go away and leave her alone, and all the trolling and stalking would stop?
No, I didn't say that.
If I were in Slim's position, I would make no comment either.
She's fine to do that, but that's not what I was talking about, either. Her not answering the question is different from a bunch of third parties eradicating all the questions.
Steve Summit schrieb:
ElinorD wrote:
On 7/29/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.
You honestly think that if she said it was false, everyone would go away and leave her alone, and all the trolling and stalking would stop?
No, I didn't say that.
If I were in Slim's position, I would make no comment either.
She's fine to do that, but that's not what I was talking about, either. Her not answering the question is different from a bunch of third parties eradicating all the questions.
At this point I feel compelled to chime in with stating that this thing starts to go from boring to annoying. I, like many others I guess, am admittedly envious of that Aston Martin full of neat little gadgets which a position with the secret service affords, but SlimVirgin doesn't constantly rub it in my face, so I'm willing to forgive her for that. I think you can tell that I'm trying to bring some of the initial mildly amusing flavor back to the drama, because that was it's only really merit. People will always dabble in their favourite conspiracy theories, and the idea of asking SV whether any of this is true reminds me of several Simpsons scenes rather than anything remotely useful. It's time to move on now.
On 7/29/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
But is there anything to it? Or is it just nasty gossip? If you want to gossip, join the Navy.
There's a fine line to be trodden here. Certainly, we don't want or need to dignify wild rumors with any attention at all. But once a story "has legs" (and whether it deserves them or not), too-strenuous attempts to deny it only fuel the speculations that there *is* a cabal and a cover-up -- and those speculations can end up driving more long-term damage than the original, spurious accusation would have.
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375. (And there may have been other reverters, sorry if I left you out, but evidently this issue has become so "serious" that [[User talk:SlimVirgin]] has had a bunch of its history deleted.)
Steve, could you point out exactly what I have been "rampantly reverting" in this regard?
jayjg wrote:
On 7/29/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.
Steve, could you point out exactly what I have been "rampantly reverting" in this regard?
Between 03:22 and 22:12 on July 27, at least 8 questions about That Slashdot Thread were posted by various users on Slim's talk page, and systematically removed by you, ElinorD, and Crum375.
Though one or two of the questions were snide, I have to assume that at least a few of them were in good faith: editors unaware of Slim's storied history, who came across the Slashdot thread and thought she might like to know about it.
I suppose "rampantly" might have been a smidge too strong. The point remains, however, that a group of editors unilaterally decided, without explanation, that a certain question was Absolutely Forbidden on Slim's talk page. I understand the reasoning behind the deletions, of course, no need to rehash all that now, but my own feeling is that the cure may have become worse than the disease.
On 01/08/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Though one or two of the questions were snide, I have to assume that at least a few of them were in good faith: editors unaware of Slim's storied history, who came across the Slashdot thread and thought she might like to know about it.
Okay, cards on the table, time for a slightly embarrassing admission. *I* don't know SlimVirgin's storied history. Or, oh, whoever else it is we seem to discuss regularly; all the participants in that attack-sites debacle seem to have backstories I don't understand. I basically don't remember much our internal politics before a few months back; it all seemed to drift past me and/or I didn't care. Do I have to lose my cabal license?
There are a large number of people - long-experienced editors, with good standing in the community and clearly not crazy - who basically have no idea what the *fuck* all this is about, and are not happy about it all. Oh, we recognise the names as "harbingers of trouble", since wherever they're mentioned a lot of smoke and mirrors and violent disagreement about internal meta-stuff follows, but we have no idea of the context or the history behind it all. It doesn't mean anything to us; it's just... noise.
But it's noise that's swallowing our project and wasting our time. We have a community on enwiki of, what, ten thousand active editors? How come obscure political bickering centering around half a dozen of them seems to take up so much time?
When people try - honestly and in good faith - to find out what on earth is going on, they get rebuffed, yelled at, discouraged. We grow up an elaborate culture of secrecy - this sort of thing must be Very Significant, all the noise made about it, but yet it isn't ever discussed freely or explained; confusing things like oversight are thrown around to further confuse matters. I can see why people would end up reading Wikipedia Review to try and understand what's going on.
All this is a net detriment to the project. It's internal navel-gazing; most of us are oblivious to it or actively discouraged from discussing it. It serves to reinforce the non-existent impression of a central cabal, it wastes the time of productive editors, and it provides an easy angle for trolls to disrupt and smear our work. And, of course, the "attacks" perpetuate it all.
Wikipedia has never been bylined. We have a culture that discourages the individual ego; we are a collaborative work. This stupid situation around a tiny handful of editors is consuming the project's resources, burning up our goodwill and credibility both among the outside world and among our own community. It's time to put a stop to it.
Please leave. All of you. The project is more important than your pride, and you are dragging it down; this situation is never going to improve unless someone walks away.
Tidy up the loose ends, sign out of your account, and walk away. Take a break. It's August, the sun's shining, it's the perfect season to go for a walk in the hills and reflect. Then come back under another name, if you want to continue working here - I would be sorry to see hard-working editors leave. Right now, you are *net detriments* to the project, no matter how many thousands of edits you rack up; I'm sorry to say it, and I feel a heel for doing it, but it's true.
This is not an attack. This request has been a long time in the making, and it is perfectly serious. Please treat it as such.
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Though one or two of the questions were snide, I have to assume that at least a few of them were in good faith: editors unaware of Slim's storied history, who came across the Slashdot thread and thought she might like to know about it.
Okay, cards on the table, time for a slightly embarrassing admission. *I* don't know SlimVirgin's storied history. Or, oh, whoever else it is we seem to discuss regularly; all the participants in that attack-sites debacle seem to have backstories I don't understand. I basically don't remember much our internal politics before a few months back; it all seemed to drift past me and/or I didn't care. Do I have to lose my cabal license?
There are a large number of people - long-experienced editors, with good standing in the community and clearly not crazy - who basically have no idea what the *fuck* all this is about, and are not happy about it all. Oh, we recognise the names as "harbingers of trouble", since wherever they're mentioned a lot of smoke and mirrors and violent disagreement about internal meta-stuff follows, but we have no idea of the context or the history behind it all. It doesn't mean anything to us; it's just... noise.
But it's noise that's swallowing our project and wasting our time. We have a community on enwiki of, what, ten thousand active editors? How come obscure political bickering centering around half a dozen of them seems to take up so much time?
When people try - honestly and in good faith - to find out what on earth is going on, they get rebuffed, yelled at, discouraged. We grow up an elaborate culture of secrecy - this sort of thing must be Very Significant, all the noise made about it, but yet it isn't ever discussed freely or explained; confusing things like oversight are thrown around to further confuse matters. I can see why people would end up reading Wikipedia Review to try and understand what's going on.
All this is a net detriment to the project. It's internal navel-gazing; most of us are oblivious to it or actively discouraged from discussing it. It serves to reinforce the non-existent impression of a central cabal, it wastes the time of productive editors, and it provides an easy angle for trolls to disrupt and smear our work. And, of course, the "attacks" perpetuate it all.
Wikipedia has never been bylined. We have a culture that discourages the individual ego; we are a collaborative work. This stupid situation around a tiny handful of editors is consuming the project's resources, burning up our goodwill and credibility both among the outside world and among our own community. It's time to put a stop to it.
Please leave. All of you. The project is more important than your pride, and you are dragging it down; this situation is never going to improve unless someone walks away.
Tidy up the loose ends, sign out of your account, and walk away. Take a break. It's August, the sun's shining, it's the perfect season to go for a walk in the hills and reflect. Then come back under another name, if you want to continue working here - I would be sorry to see hard-working editors leave. Right now, you are *net detriments* to the project, no matter how many thousands of edits you rack up; I'm sorry to say it, and I feel a heel for doing it, but it's true.
This is not an attack. This request has been a long time in the making, and it is perfectly serious. Please treat it as such.
I would like to second all of what Andrew has said above.
This incessant cacophony of personal drama is drowning out useful conversations actually relevant to the building of the project. It is causing stress and emotional pain for many of us. It's completely unnecessary, and is within your power to stop. Hand in your bits, and step away from the project for three months. Get some fresh air. Say hi to your friends and family. And don't worry about what's happening here, because others will be rising to take your place in sharing the workload; that's how we work. Go. We can afford to spare you, for as long as you need. We'll see you again, because those who care about this project can never stay away permanently. But staying in the heart of the fire out of pride, or ego, or vanity, is folly, and can only lead to madness.
Michael Noda wrote:
I would like to second all of what Andrew has said above.
Thirded. I've been working on Wikipedia since mid 2001, I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of years now too, and I neither know nor really care all that much about all these details. What I _do_ care about is the atmosphere that's being generated by it, both here on-wiki and in the general external public perception of what we do here. It's all just a tempest in a teapot in the grand scheme of things but it's a loud and annoying tempest that gets attention.
I'm not going to go so far as to ask anyone to leave, but it would be really nice if everyone ratcheted down the drama a bit. If someone asks "hey, this link [1] says you're a secret agent who blew up Locherbie, what's with that?" Just give a plain answer explaining how the article's written by a loonie with an axe to grind. Dollars to donuts most people will go "oh, okay" and move on. Using all this mysterious "Oversight" and "Attack Sites" stuff to wipe the question from existence only makes things worse.
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Michael Noda wrote:
I would like to second all of what Andrew has said above.
Thirded. I've been working on Wikipedia since mid 2001, I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of years now too, and I neither know nor really care all that much about all these details. What I _do_ care about is the atmosphere that's being generated by it, both here on-wiki and in the general external public perception of what we do here. It's all just a tempest in a teapot in the grand scheme of things but it's a loud and annoying tempest that gets attention.
I'm not going to go so far as to ask anyone to leave, but it would be really nice if everyone ratcheted down the drama a bit. If someone asks "hey, this link [1] says you're a secret agent who blew up Locherbie, what's with that?" Just give a plain answer explaining how the article's written by a loonie with an axe to grind. Dollars to donuts most people will go "oh, okay" and move on. Using all this mysterious "Oversight" and "Attack Sites" stuff to wipe the question from existence only makes things worse.
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out. These accusations are ridiculous, but are we responding to them appropriately?
Johnleemk
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Michael Noda wrote:
I would like to second all of what Andrew has said above.
Thirded. I've been working on Wikipedia since mid 2001, I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of years now too, and I neither know nor really care all that much about all these details. What I _do_ care about is the atmosphere that's being generated by it, both here on-wiki and in the general external public perception of what we do here. It's all just a tempest in a teapot in the grand scheme of things but it's a loud and annoying tempest that gets attention.
I'm not going to go so far as to ask anyone to leave, but it would be really nice if everyone ratcheted down the drama a bit. If someone asks "hey, this link [1] says you're a secret agent who blew up Locherbie, what's with that?" Just give a plain answer explaining how the article's written by a loonie with an axe to grind. Dollars to donuts most people will go "oh, okay" and move on. Using all this mysterious "Oversight" and "Attack Sites" stuff to wipe the question from existence only makes things worse.
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
...wow, that was an impressive miscommunication.
My post was not directed at the people discussing the situation, though I would undoubtedly prefer not to have to hear about it. It was directed at the people who are invariably at the core of what is being discussed and whose behaviour seems only to further aggravate the whole problem.
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
...wow, that was an impressive miscommunication.
My post was not directed at the people discussing the situation, though I would undoubtedly prefer not to have to hear about it. It was directed at the people who are invariably at the core of what is being discussed and whose behaviour seems only to further aggravate the whole problem.
So because I removed one comment from SV's page, you think I need to take a few months off?
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
My post was not directed at the people discussing the situation, though I would undoubtedly prefer not to have to hear about it. It was directed at the people who are invariably at the core of what is being discussed and whose behaviour seems only to further aggravate the whole problem.
So because I removed one comment from SV's page, you think I need to take a few months off?
You have been involved in this whole long-term ongoing debacle a lot more than removing "one comment", and whilst you seem to have a hard time understanding what my message meant I notice no-one else on this thread seemed under any misconceptions about it.
Let me explain my stance again.
I am all for people's rights to privacy, and all for us doing reasonable amounts to protect their anonymity where people are dickish about that. Heck, I would be v. upset if someone started "outing" information about me for whatever petty reasons they might have, and though I sign my name here, I have taken quiet care to conceal details I consider private.
But when it comes to disrupting the encyclopedia [as with the whole attack-sites fiasco before], consuming vast amounts of our time and energy and attention, and making us look like a bunch of easily-gamed incompetents to the outside world - all to protect the anonymity of one username, anonymity which seems to be thoroughly torpedoed by this stage? We're going too far; we're prioritising stubborn pride over our work.
This is a problem that could be solved not by "appeasement", that loaded but meaningless term, but by a simple and pragmatic decision by a handful of [already-pseudonymous] users to stop editing for a few weeks and come back under another name. I don't care who you think "wins" if that happens - it's the best solution, inasmuch as it stops this vast amount of noise and disruption.
And everyone else would feel the benefit. I know I'm banging the drum here, but really, it's for the good of the encyclopedia. Yes, it would dent some egos. Yes, some trolls somewhere would be smug.
But pragmatically, there is no other way to stop it, to control and calm the debacle. There isn't a "and then everything is fluffy bunnies" outcome at this stage. Nothing you do can make this situation better.
*Nothing*. Yes, it sucks.
Like I said originally, this is not personal; this is not because I dislike any of the participants (you and I have had many disagreements in the past, but I don't recall dealing with Slim, and I've never had cause to argue with you over an actual *article*!). I feel a heel saying it. I wish the situation wasn't where it's got to.
Right now, you and Slim and the others are just magnets for drama. It doesn't matter why it all started, or what the details of it are, or who said what when, or how terribly unfair it all is to complain; your responses perpetuate it and aggravate it. This whole thing is ballooning bigger and bigger as time goes on; what you are doing is harming the project, and if it goes on much further the incremental damage will be that much worse.
Please. For the good of the project, turn around and walk away. Nothing to stop you coming back - you can tell us about it privately or you can keep it quiet - and no-one will be any the wiser; new account, muddle around editing something trivial for a few weeks, and that's it. We'll survive without you, for a while; the graveyards are full of indispensable men, and all that.
Heck, even keeping your current identity and just dropping all this endless game of whack-a-mole oversighting would be a start.
We can't make this decision for you; there isn't a "process" the community can use to make you do the sensible thing. But we can *ask*, we can explain, we can advocate, that you do it.
As one colleague to another. Please.
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
My post was not directed at the people discussing the situation, though I would undoubtedly prefer not to have to hear about it. It was directed at the people who are invariably at the core of what is being discussed and whose behaviour seems only to further aggravate the whole problem.
So because I removed one comment from SV's page, you think I need to take a few months off?
You have been involved in this whole long-term ongoing debacle a lot more than removing "one comment",
What do you mean by "long-term ongoing debacle", and what has my "involvement" been?
[duplicate sent, sorry]
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
You have been involved in this whole long-term ongoing debacle a lot more than removing "one comment",
What do you mean by "long-term ongoing debacle", and what has my "involvement" been?
Please stop this; it is just petty. You are the only person who seems to not understand what I mean when I mention your involvement and discuss the SlimVirgin backstory, etc, as an ongoing drama.
Perhaps you cannot see the wood for the trees?
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
This is a problem that could be solved not by "appeasement", that loaded but meaningless term, but by a simple and pragmatic decision by a handful of [already-pseudonymous] users to stop editing for a few weeks and come back under another name. I don't care who you think "wins" if that happens - it's the best solution, inasmuch as it stops this vast amount of noise and disruption.
Unfortunately, this is not possible. You can't easily come back to Wikipedia under another name and not be recognized, if you're recognizable, if people already know you and your writing style and your interests and your behavior.
It's been tried over and again by people trying to escape their reputation and start afresh, and it fails often enough that I must conclude that it's not a winning strategy.
And if you disappear and come back under another name, it'll only add gasoline to the flames in terms of conspiracy theorists.
-Matt
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
This is a problem that could be solved not by "appeasement", that loaded but meaningless term, but by a simple and pragmatic decision by a handful of [already-pseudonymous] users to stop editing for a few weeks and come back under another name. I don't care who you think "wins" if that happens - it's the best solution, inasmuch as it stops this vast amount of noise and disruption.
Unfortunately, this is not possible. You can't easily come back to Wikipedia under another name and not be recognized, if you're recognizable, if people already know you and your writing style and your interests and your behavior.
It's been tried over and again by people trying to escape their reputation and start afresh, and it fails often enough that I must conclude that it's not a winning strategy.
Indeed; I can think of at least a half-dozen off the top of my head who have tried and failed. And it especially doesn't work if you have a pack of obsessive Wikipedia-watchers hovering in the sidelines trying to foil any such attempt.
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
This is a problem that could be solved not by "appeasement", that loaded but meaningless term, but by a simple and pragmatic decision by a handful of [already-pseudonymous] users to stop editing for a few weeks and come back under another name. I don't care who you think "wins" if that happens - it's the best solution, inasmuch as it stops this vast amount of noise and disruption.
Unfortunately, this is not possible. You can't easily come back to Wikipedia under another name and not be recognized, if you're recognizable, if people already know you and your writing style and your interests and your behavior.
It's been tried over and again by people trying to escape their reputation and start afresh, and it fails often enough that I must conclude that it's not a winning strategy.
I'd say your sample is necessarily biased because the ones who don't get caught you wouldn't find out about. I've made significant edits under a few different accounts other than the one I originally created, and while I assume some people have probably noticed it I haven't really received any public accusations recently.
In the end you probably are fighting a losing battle though. Pseudonymity doesn't really work.
And if you disappear and come back under another name, it'll only add gasoline to the flames in terms of conspiracy theorists.
So what is the solution, then? I ask this not just for Sarah, but for all of us. I think we've gotta accept either the fact that our pseudonyms are eventually going to be found out or else we've gotta change pseudonyms frequently. Even moreso for most of us, who don't have friends to oversight our edits for us.
On 8/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
It's been tried over and again by people trying to escape their reputation and start afresh, and it fails often enough that I must conclude that it's not a winning strategy.
I'd say your sample is necessarily biased because the ones who don't get caught you wouldn't find out about. I've made significant edits under a few different accounts other than the one I originally created, and while I assume some people have probably noticed it I haven't really received any public accusations recently.
In some cases I've known in confidence that someone is a returnee; most of these have been exposed eventually. Perhaps there's a correlation between my knowing and those people being more likely to be exposed, however; certainly possible.
So what is the solution, then? I ask this not just for Sarah, but for all of us. I think we've gotta accept either the fact that our pseudonyms are eventually going to be found out or else we've gotta change pseudonyms frequently. Even moreso for most of us, who don't have friends to oversight our edits for us.
I'm not sure what the answer is. Personally, I make no great effort to be anonymous or pseudonymous. I use my real (albeit common) name and people could probably find me with very little effort. IMO, I think it being too easy makes it less tempting, and makes it appear like there's no big exciting secret - since there's not.
However, I have no enemies I know of and have an employer and family that are pretty damn cool. Not everyone is in that situation.
In the end, I'd recommend that anyone who has big reason to be anonymous not edit Wikipedia. If they are willing to take the risk to, it's much safer if you do not edit in areas where you are a known figure, do not seek adminship or if you do, don't court controversy, and in general avoid Wikipedia's battlegrounds.
-Matt
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
...wow, that was an impressive miscommunication.
My post was not directed at the people discussing the situation, though I would undoubtedly prefer not to have to hear about it. It was directed at the people who are invariably at the core of what is being discussed and whose behaviour seems only to further aggravate the whole problem.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Someone gossips about ME, and I'm supposed to drop out to stop them? Huh? What references do you have that suggest this will shut a gossip up?
KP
K P wrote:
Someone gossips about ME, and I'm supposed to drop out to stop them? Huh? What references do you have that suggest this will shut a gossip up?
Fighting tooth and nail to suppress the gossip certainly doesn't seem to have worked.
SlimVirgin can decide to do what she thinks is appropriate for herself; dropping out, ignoring the gossip, arguing with it, suing the gossipers for libel, etc. I'm quite willing to feel sympathetic to her plight if she's got nutballs on her case. What I object to is getting the rest of Wikipedia all tied up in knots over it as well. IMO it's making things worse for Wikipedia as a whole.
- Original message - Fighting tooth and nail to suppress the gossip cer...
Agreed.
-Josh/Somitho
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
K P wrote:
Someone gossips about ME, and I'm supposed to drop out to stop them? Huh? What references do you have that suggest this will shut a gossip up?
Fighting tooth and nail to suppress the gossip certainly doesn't seem to have worked.
SlimVirgin can decide to do what she thinks is appropriate for herself; dropping out, ignoring the gossip, arguing with it, suing the gossipers for libel, etc. I'm quite willing to feel sympathetic to her plight if she's got nutballs on her case. What I object to is getting the rest of Wikipedia all tied up in knots over it as well. IMO it's making things worse for Wikipedia as a whole.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Michael Noda wrote:
I would like to second all of what Andrew has said above.
Thirded. I've been working on Wikipedia since mid 2001, I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of years now too, and I neither know nor really care all that much about all these details. What I _do_ care about is the atmosphere that's being generated by it, both here on-wiki and in the general external public perception of what we do here. It's all just a tempest in a teapot in the grand scheme of things but it's a loud and annoying tempest that gets attention.
I'm not going to go so far as to ask anyone to leave, but it would be really nice if everyone ratcheted down the drama a bit. If someone asks "hey, this link [1] says you're a secret agent who blew up Locherbie, what's with that?" Just give a plain answer explaining how the article's written by a loonie with an axe to grind. Dollars to donuts most people will go "oh, okay" and move on. Using all this mysterious "Oversight" and "Attack Sites" stuff to wipe the question from existence only makes things worse.
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
What would make the most sense is if Sarah just switched to a new account. Her hope for remaining pseudonymous using User:SlimVirgin is quickly dwindling to nil, and the vain attempts to change this situation are doing nothing but cause problems for the project.
On 8/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Michael Noda wrote:
I would like to second all of what Andrew has said above.
Thirded. I've been working on Wikipedia since mid 2001, I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of years now too, and I neither know nor really care all that much about all these details. What I _do_ care about is the atmosphere that's being generated by it, both here on-wiki and in the general external public perception of what we do here. It's all just a tempest in a teapot in the grand scheme of things but it's a loud and annoying tempest that gets attention.
I'm not going to go so far as to ask anyone to leave, but it would be really nice if everyone ratcheted down the drama a bit. If someone asks "hey, this link [1] says you're a secret agent who blew up Locherbie, what's with that?" Just give a plain answer explaining how the article's written by a loonie with an axe to grind. Dollars to donuts most people will go "oh, okay" and move on. Using all this mysterious "Oversight" and "Attack Sites" stuff to wipe the question from existence only makes things worse.
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
What would make the most sense is if Sarah just switched to a new account. Her hope for remaining pseudonymous using User:SlimVirgin is quickly dwindling to nil, and the vain attempts to change this situation are doing nothing but cause problems for the project.
I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here, just ignored.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What would make the most sense is if Sarah just switched to a new account. Her hope for remaining pseudonymous using User:SlimVirgin is quickly dwindling to nil, and the vain attempts to change this situation are doing nothing but cause problems for the project.
I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here, just ignored.
The good is that Sarah can once again contribute pseudonymously, at least until she's outed again (which could take long or short depending on how carefully she edits this time around).
On the other hand, if you want to ignore it, then ignore it. Stop oversighting things, stop banning links to websites simply because they provide the information, stop deleting comments which in good faith ask questions about it, stop contributing to this thread. Ignoring it of course means giving in as well, because if you ignore it all the private details are going to come out. Various people at Wikipedia Review have already reconstructed pretty much all of the edits that were oversighted. Archive.org contains much of the rest. User:SlimVirgin is outed. That's the reality of the situation. You can call the people anything you want, but calling people names doesn't change reality.
On 8/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The good is that Sarah can once again contribute pseudonymously, at least until she's outed again (which could take long or short depending on how carefully she edits this time around).
So she starts over from scratch, rebuild's her reputation, makes admin again, blocks one of "them", and we're back here talking about this again.
On 8/1/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The good is that Sarah can once again contribute pseudonymously, at least until she's outed again (which could take long or short depending on how carefully she edits this time around).
So she starts over from scratch, rebuild's her reputation, makes admin again, blocks one of "them", and we're back here talking about this again.
Hopefully we'll be smarter next time not to talk about it. And hopefully she'll be smarter to not "inadvertantly reveal personal information" by adding original research to articles about which she has a conflict of interest. And merely blocking "one of them" probably wouldn't be enough anyway. If Sarah hadn't started an article on Namebase or Brandt I seriously doubt any of this would have happened.
There's more to Wikipedia than blocking people anyway. If you're someone who's really concerned about not being outed, maybe you should spend all of your time on the millions of tasks other than blocking. And laying off those topics about which we hold strong feelings is probably a good idea whether we care about being outed or not. There are what, tens of thousands of Wikipedians who go about writing an encyclopedia without drawing the ire of people on Wikipedia Review?
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here, just ignored.
"Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?" on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those efforts to conceal something.
If you honestly don't see that this sort of behaviour is wasteful, counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by god, they were worth making.
At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away. Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to now aren't the people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown Misdemeanours" look like?
The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username, and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
Andrew Gray wrote:
I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic example of our "natural supporters".)
Slashdot appearances are not as big a deal as they once were - Internet has a much broader reach now. Several days later I see that Google News shows no other source troubling to take up the story. I would say that Slashdot readers are sufficiently savvy to recognize conspiracy theories, and to realize that a story about "infiltration of WP" is a more of a insiders' joke than anything else, like one of those "Linux is a Microsoft plot against Apple" stories that go by from time to time.
Stan
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here, just ignored.
"Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?" on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those efforts to conceal something.
If you honestly don't see that this sort of behaviour is wasteful, counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by god, they were worth making.
At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away. Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to now aren't the people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown Misdemeanours" look like?
The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username, and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here, just ignored.
"Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?" on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those efforts to conceal something.
If you honestly don't see that this sort of behaviour is wasteful, counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by god, they were worth making.
At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away. Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to now aren't the people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown Misdemeanours" look like?
The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username, and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
Jay, the "who, me?" attitude you are taking is getting tiresome. Do you really not realize the damage you have done to your own reputation, and the project's? Either you do, in which case your continuing to be inflammatory towards fellow editors and trolls alike is inexcusable, or you do not, in which case you have not yet heard the patient explanations and pleas of your fellow editors.
Assuming the latter: Your actions have been counter-productive to any goals you may have had in mind while taking them. The endless discussions that you help generate are drowning out useful collaboration internally, and advocacy and goodwill for the project externally. While the long service you have given this project is vast and will always be appreciated, I for one can no longer in good conscience ask you to stay; both you and the project need for you to step back, and let fresher hands take up your work. Go, with our blessing.
Please don't say 'our', you reflect views of yourself and can not in any capacity represent all of en.wp. While I know and dislike some of jayjg's actions and realize he has done things which are infact questionable and morally wrong. He is still a good editor and has made a number of good faith contributions to this project. He atleast in my eyes is welcome to stay and contribute. If you have an issue with him using tools, in a way he shouldn't then please take that up directly to him or another authority, or establish the ability to recall an editors mop/various bits.
I'll go back to waiting on my flight and hope to see you at wikimania.
-Josh/Somitho
On 8/1/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et
al,
ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill
out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here, just ignored.
"Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?" on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those efforts to conceal something.
If you honestly don't see that this sort of behaviour is wasteful, counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by god, they were worth making.
At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away. Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to now aren't the people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown Misdemeanours" look like?
The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username, and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
Jay, the "who, me?" attitude you are taking is getting tiresome. Do you really not realize the damage you have done to your own reputation, and the project's? Either you do, in which case your continuing to be inflammatory towards fellow editors and trolls alike is inexcusable, or you do not, in which case you have not yet heard the patient explanations and pleas of your fellow editors.
Assuming the latter: Your actions have been counter-productive to any goals you may have had in mind while taking them. The endless discussions that you help generate are drowning out useful collaboration internally, and advocacy and goodwill for the project externally. While the long service you have given this project is vast and will always be appreciated, I for one can no longer in good conscience ask you to stay; both you and the project need for you to step back, and let fresher hands take up your work. Go, with our blessing.
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 8/1/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't say 'our', you reflect views of yourself and can not in any capacity represent all of en.wp. While I know and dislike some of jayjg's actions and realize he has done things which are infact questionable and morally wrong.
Morally wrong? Wow.
jayjg wrote:
On 8/1/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't say 'our', you reflect views of yourself and can not in any capacity represent all of en.wp. While I know and dislike some of jayjg's actions and realize he has done things which are infact questionable and morally wrong.
Morally wrong? Wow.
This is a project dedicated to the free distribution of information to the world. It should not be surprising that talk of deleting open discussions and removing revisions from history causes a significant portion of the sort of people who would be attracted to such a project to reflexively reach for their anti-censorship swords.
I happen to be one of them. Without the goodwill of the volunteer community Wikipedia is a dead project, we should keep every Wikipedia process as open to them as legally possible.
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 8/1/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't say 'our', you reflect views of yourself and can not in any capacity represent all of en.wp. While I know and dislike some of jayjg's actions and realize he has done things which are infact questionable and morally wrong.
Morally wrong? Wow.
This is a project dedicated to the free distribution of information to the world. It should not be surprising that talk of deleting open discussions and removing revisions from history causes a significant portion of the sort of people who would be attracted to such a project to reflexively reach for their anti-censorship swords.
I happen to be one of them. Without the goodwill of the volunteer community Wikipedia is a dead project, we should keep every Wikipedia process as open to them as legally possible.
Actually, Joshua e-mailed me explaining himself, and his use of the term "morally wrong" has nothing to do with "deleting open discussions" etc. I'm not sure why you think that's relevant to me. Anyway, part of maintaining the goodwill of the volunteer community is protecting them when they are attacked as a result of their volunteer work on behalf of Wikipedia. Or at least empathizing with them, rather than saying "oops, you seem to be too much trouble now, get lost".
jayjg wrote:
Anyway, part of maintaining the goodwill of the volunteer community is protecting them when they are attacked as a result of their volunteer work on behalf of Wikipedia. Or at least empathizing with them, rather than saying "oops, you seem to be too much trouble now, get lost".
Certainly. The problem comes when that has to be balanced with the needs of other editors and with the health of the project as a whole. For example, if we were to change the no personal attacks policy so that any violation would result in an automatic permanent ban, it might make the remaining editors better "protected" but it would probably be bad overall for the encyclopedia.
I am capable of empathizing with someone while at the same time pointing out that I consider their actions to be futile and possibly causing more harm than good (though in this case SlimVirgin herself doesn't seem to be involved in any of this public drama). Empathy with someone doesn't require unconditional support of whatever that person does.
BTW, the "get lost" option doesn't necessarily mean "go away." As other posters have pointed out, one of SlimVirgin's options is to switch to a new pseudonym. She could continue to contribute while hopefully ditching all this crazy baggage that's accumulated.
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Anyway, part of maintaining the goodwill of the volunteer community is protecting them when they are attacked as a result of their volunteer work on behalf of Wikipedia. Or at least empathizing with them, rather than saying "oops, you seem to be too much trouble now, get lost".
Certainly. The problem comes when that has to be balanced with the needs of other editors and with the health of the project as a whole. For example, if we were to change the no personal attacks policy so that any violation would result in an automatic permanent ban, it might make the remaining editors better "protected" but it would probably be bad overall for the encyclopedia.
I am capable of empathizing with someone while at the same time pointing out that I consider their actions to be futile and possibly causing more harm than good (though in this case SlimVirgin herself doesn't seem to be involved in any of this public drama). Empathy with someone doesn't require unconditional support of whatever that person does.
But the only "public drama" I'm seeing is the continual mastication of this topic on this very list.
jayjg wrote:
But the only "public drama" I'm seeing is the continual mastication of this topic on this very list.
There's also various news and blog posts around the net, for example I saw http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/27/1943254.shtml before I even got into this thread here.
If you're looking for it on Wikipedia itself, that's a bit of a catch-22.
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
This is a project dedicated to the free distribution of information to the world.
But it is not a free speech zone. Dedication to the dissemination of legitimate knowledge does not require us to help the spread of unsubstantiated attacks and ridiculous allegations across the globe, whether it be libel against the subjects of articles or our fellow editors.
Rob wrote:
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
This is a project dedicated to the free distribution of information to the world.
But it is not a free speech zone.
Not relevant, I never claimed it was. You snipped the rest of my email where I use this point simply to establish that the sort of people who would be attracted to working here are the sorts of people who value free speech highly, hence why morality is being brought up.
On 8/1/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't say 'our', you reflect views of yourself and can not in any capacity represent all of en.wp. While I know and dislike some of jayjg's actions and realize he has done things which are infact questionable and morally wrong. He is still a good editor and has made a number of good faith contributions to this project. He atleast in my eyes is welcome to stay and contribute. If you have an issue with him using tools, in a way he shouldn't then please take that up directly to him or another authority, or establish the ability to recall an editors mop/various bits.
I was certainly not presuming to speak for all of en.wp; I apologize if I gave that impression. However, I think I'm speaking for more than myself; minimally, I think I speak for those on this list who have voiced similar sentiments. I think the use of the first person plural was appropriate here.
I'll go back to waiting on my flight and hope to see you at wikimania.
Alas, I won't be there this year. Have fun, and keep us homebound folk posted on the festivities!
On 8/1/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al, ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here, just ignored.
"Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?" on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those efforts to conceal something.
If you honestly don't see that this sort of behaviour is wasteful, counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by god, they were worth making.
At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away. Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to now aren't the people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown Misdemeanours" look like?
The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username, and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
Jay, the "who, me?" attitude you are taking is getting tiresome. Do you really not realize the damage you have done to your own reputation, and the project's?
Huh? What are you talking about?
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
Those who also look bad are those trying to quell good faith discussion/queries about SV. Quoth myself (yet again):
"Not everyone reads the mailing list/Slashdot and may want to enquire about rumours they've heard. I would rather that they heard about these ridiculous allegations from Wikipedians on Wikipedia, rather than on some other website because self-righteous Wikipedians decide any mention whatsoever of the claims is ridiculous."
Johnleemk
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
Those who also look bad are those trying to quell good faith discussion/queries about SV.
"Good faith"? I don't think so. Wikien-l is not really supposed to be a place for scurrilous gossip-mongering and conspiracy spreading, is it?
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
Those who also look bad are those trying to quell good faith discussion/queries about SV.
"Good faith"? I don't think so. Wikien-l is not really supposed to be a place for scurrilous gossip-mongering and conspiracy spreading, is it?
I'm really losing my patience with how you seem to misunderstand everything we're saying, and it's getting harder to assume you're making good faith misinterpretations, but I will try in spite of myself.
If you recall, we were talking about how people on-wiki were trying to completely eradicate *questions* about the allegations - questions from people acting in good faith. Believe it or not, not everyone on Wikipedia knows who SV is or her storied past of abuse by WR, Brandt, et al, and there is no reason to assume everyone asking about this is a bad faith shit-stirrer trying to rile us/her up. That people were asking David Gerard to oversight things like this, after removing the ostensibly offending questions probably made in good faith, simply makes us look bad.
Johnleemk
On 01/08/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
Those who also look bad are those trying to quell good faith discussion/queries about SV.
"Good faith"? I don't think so. Wikien-l is not really supposed to be a place for scurrilous gossip-mongering and conspiracy spreading, is it?
I'm really losing my patience with how you seem to misunderstand everything we're saying, and it's getting harder to assume you're making good faith misinterpretations, but I will try in spite of myself.
If you recall, we were talking about how people on-wiki were trying to completely eradicate *questions* about the allegations - questions from people acting in good faith. Believe it or not, not everyone on Wikipedia knows who SV is or her storied past of abuse by WR, Brandt, et al, and there is no reason to assume everyone asking about this is a bad faith shit-stirrer trying to rile us/her up. That people were asking David Gerard to oversight things like this, after removing the ostensibly offending questions probably made in good faith, simply makes us look bad.
Johnleemk
I am sure you mean well, but falling to the Victim-Blaming fallacy very psychologically harmful to SlimVirgin and other victims nonetheless... hence the terms 'the second rape' and 'the second assault'... well, the psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse.
See the thread entitled 'The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?)' for a more detailed explanation.
Armed Blowfish
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more, Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
Those who also look bad are those trying to quell good faith discussion/queries about SV.
"Good faith"? I don't think so. Wikien-l is not really supposed to be a place for scurrilous gossip-mongering and conspiracy spreading, is it?
I'm really losing my patience with how you seem to misunderstand everything we're saying, and it's getting harder to assume you're making good faith misinterpretations, but I will try in spite of myself.
If you recall, we were talking about how people on-wiki were trying to completely eradicate *questions* about the allegations - questions from people acting in good faith. Believe it or not, not everyone on Wikipedia knows who SV is or her storied past of abuse by WR, Brandt, et al, and there is no reason to assume everyone asking about this is a bad faith shit-stirrer trying to rile us/her up. That people were asking David Gerard to oversight things like this, after removing the ostensibly offending questions probably made in good faith, simply makes us look bad.
Johnleemk
Here's another forwarded response from ArmedBlowfish:
--------
I am sure you mean well, but falling to the Victim-Blaming fallacy very psychologically harmful to SlimVirgin and other victims nonetheless... hence the terms 'the second rape' and 'the second assault'... well, the psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse.
See the thread entitled 'The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?)' for a more detailed explanation.
Armed Blowfish
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really losing my patience with how you seem to misunderstand
everything
we're saying, and it's getting harder to assume you're making good faith misinterpretations, but I will try in spite of myself.
If you recall, we were talking about how people on-wiki were trying to completely eradicate *questions* about the allegations - questions from people acting in good faith. Believe it or not, not everyone on
Wikipedia
knows who SV is or her storied past of abuse by WR, Brandt, et al, and
there
is no reason to assume everyone asking about this is a bad faith shit-stirrer trying to rile us/her up. That people were asking David
Gerard
to oversight things like this, after removing the ostensibly offending questions probably made in good faith, simply makes us look bad.
Johnleemk
Here's another forwarded response from ArmedBlowfish:
I am sure you mean well, but falling to the Victim-Blaming fallacy very psychologically harmful to SlimVirgin and other victims nonetheless... hence the terms 'the second rape' and 'the second assault'... well, the psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse.
See the thread entitled 'The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?)' for a more detailed explanation.
I've seen it. I fail to see how I am blaming the victim; as far as I can tell she was not directly responsible for the attempted salting of apparently innocent questions/statements made by misguided by otherwise good-faith editors, and I have never blamed her for such.
Johnleemk
On 01/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on Wikipedia should take a break.
What would make the most sense is if Sarah just switched to a new account. Her hope for remaining pseudonymous using User:SlimVirgin is quickly dwindling to nil, and the vain attempts to change this situation are doing nothing but cause problems for the project.
The talk of appeasement, of course, makes one think of Chamberlain.
"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 01/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What would make the most sense is if Sarah just switched to a new account. Her hope for remaining pseudonymous using User:SlimVirgin is quickly dwindling to nil, and the vain attempts to change this situation are doing nothing but cause problems for the project.
The talk of appeasement, of course, makes one think of Chamberlain.
"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
One would have thought that having Mike Godwin actually on our payroll would have helped to stave this moment off a bit longer. :)
More seriously, it's a meaningless analogy that provides no useful insight. Who's appeasing who? Perhaps Wikipedia is appeasing SlimVirgin by giving in to her demands that any mention of this gossip be suppressed, in which case the same analogy supports the exact opposite conclusion. "Appeasement" is not inherently good or bad, one has to look at the details.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
More seriously, it's a meaningless analogy that provides no useful insight. Who's appeasing who? Perhaps Wikipedia is appeasing SlimVirgin by giving in to her demands that any mention of this gossip be suppressed, in which case the same analogy supports the exact opposite conclusion. "Appeasement" is not inherently good or bad, one has to look at the details.
It was pointed out to me offlist that it looked like I was claiming SlimVirgin was demanding this gossip be suppressed. That wasn't my intention; I don't know who specifically is driving the suppression efforts and don't think it's actually all that important to name names here. My intent was just to point out how bad an argument the analogy was by showing it can be used just as well to support the opposite outcome.
Andrew Gray wrote:
Please leave. All of you. The project is more important than your pride, and you are dragging it down; this situation is never going to improve unless someone walks away.
I understand the motivation for saying this, but I think you misunderstand the goals of the people attacking WP; they are not after individuals, they want the project as a whole to fail, or to come under their control in some way. If a dozen prominent Wikipedians leave, then the attackers will go after the next dozen, and so forth. Go and read some of the conspiracy stuff at WR; Jimbo's use of the term "lunatics" is not an exaggeration! Is that really who you want deciding what goes on at WP?
Appeasement is not going to work.
Stan
On 01/08/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
I understand the motivation for saying this, but I think you misunderstand the goals of the people attacking WP; they are not after individuals, they want the project as a whole to fail, or to come under their control in some way. If a dozen prominent Wikipedians leave, then the attackers will go after the next dozen, and so forth. Go and read some of the conspiracy stuff at WR; Jimbo's use of the term "lunatics" is not an exaggeration! Is that really who you want deciding what goes on at WP?
Appeasement is not going to work.
And characterising it as "appeasement" just further polarises the situation. The fact that someone we don't like would be pleased (or smug, perhaps more accurately) does not stop the fact that the project would be better off for it. I am not calling for this because it's what Wikipedia Review demand - I don't know what Wikipedia Review want, to be frank. I am calling for this because I'm sick of it, and I feel strongly that others are too.
I have no doubt that there are people who would keep attacking the project if every single one of our existing "senior" users, however we define that, you and I included, left tonight and were replaced by new people. That's life. Those people are nuts, and we ignore them.
But this is above and beyond that. It's senseless, self-perpetuating, worthless drama. It actively *encourages* further trolling and attacks - like this "spy" claim - and artificially boosts their plausibility by the way we react to them. It sullies the project as a whole; it makes us look like paranoid loons with bizzare hidden agendas. It makes it look like the nutters have something sensible to say, which is the most worrying part...
And that's not just how it looks to the crazies. This is the image we begin to show to the outside world at large!
I have invested several years work in this project; so have you. This self-centred drama is trivialising what we've tried to achieve; it's using the encyclopedia as a playground for personalities, with a vague pretence that this in some way benefits the community. It makes us *all* look bad, and if left unchecked it will begin to seriously jeopardise the goodwill we have patiently built up over the years.
Andrew Gray wrote:
And characterising it as "appeasement" just further polarises the situation. The fact that someone we don't like would be pleased (or smug, perhaps more accurately) does not stop the fact that the project would be better off for it. I am not calling for this because it's what Wikipedia Review demand - I don't know what Wikipedia Review want, to be frank. I am calling for this because I'm sick of it, and I feel strongly that others are too.
Where do you think all this drama is coming from in the first place? The lunatics at WR have been trying to get wider attention for their conspiracy theories for several years. So you're unwittingly playing into their hands, and in fact, your "please leave" message is already reproduced at WR as the start of a new discussion thread.
Now it would be good if we had better ways to tamp down the drama once it gets started. But asking valuable editors to quit in response to outsiders going after them is completely the wrong way to go about it - you may not like the word "appeasement", but what else would you call it? You're giving the attackers what they want, at the expense of the victims. Now that you're featured on WR, you're going to be under scrutiny yourself - are you willing to quit and abandon all your WP work when they start attacking you? And no, coming back under another name won't help, they are always ready to make sockpuppet accusations.
You really should go take a look at WR, and see the malevolence for yourself.
Stan
On 8/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote: But asking valuable editors to quit in response to outsiders going after them is completely the wrong way to go about it - you may not like the word "appeasement", but what else would you call it? You're giving the attackers what they want, at the expense of the victims. Now that you're featured on WR, you're going to be under scrutiny yourself - are you willing to quit and abandon all your WP work when they start attacking you? And no, coming back under another name won't help, they are always ready to make sockpuppet accusations.
You really should go take a look at WR, and see the malevolence for yourself.
Wikipedia Review is not monolithic, of course, any more than Wikipedia is -- you're making the same mistakes that people made about Wikipedia for years. Some people on WR are completely insane; others are just deeply misguided and paranoid; a few are rather sensible. There is no cabal.
Anyway, I very much doubt WR would be able to identify a random new editor who happens to be the former slimvirgin. I don't know much about S.V., but if she can't get anything at all done as an ordinary editor, then perhaps we need to give ordinary editors more powers.
Shit, I messed up the quoting in that post. Shebs was saying that stuff himself, not quoting Gray.
On 8/1/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote: But asking valuable editors to quit in response to outsiders going after them is completely the wrong way to go about it - you may not like the word "appeasement", but what else would you call it? You're giving the attackers what they want, at the expense of the victims. Now that you're featured on WR, you're going to be under scrutiny yourself - are you willing to quit and abandon all your WP work when they start attacking you? And no, coming back under another name won't help, they are always ready to make sockpuppet accusations.
You really should go take a look at WR, and see the malevolence for yourself.
Wikipedia Review is not monolithic, of course, any more than Wikipedia is -- you're making the same mistakes that people made about Wikipedia for years. Some people on WR are completely insane; others are just deeply misguided and paranoid; a few are rather sensible. There is no cabal.
Anyway, I very much doubt WR would be able to identify a random new editor who happens to be the former slimvirgin. I don't know much about S.V., but if she can't get anything at all done as an ordinary editor, then perhaps we need to give ordinary editors more powers.
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
On 8/1/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia Review is not monolithic, of course, any more than Wikipedia is -- you're making the same mistakes that people made about Wikipedia for years. Some people on WR are completely insane; others are just deeply misguided and paranoid; a few are rather sensible. There is no cabal.
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review? While the sensible are not responsible for the insane and paranoid, if they willingly choose to participate in a forum where the insane and paranoid plot their attacks, what does that say about how sensible they supposedly are? Wikipedia blocks its trolls, and if WR's defenders (and by defenders I mean both WR-ites and people who say "eh, they have some good people in the mess" or "they come up with the intelligent critique now and then") want people to take it seriously and not view it as an insane attack site, then WR should do the same.
Rob wrote:
On 8/1/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia Review is not monolithic, of course, any more than Wikipedia is -- you're making the same mistakes that people made about Wikipedia for years. Some people on WR are completely insane; others are just deeply misguided and paranoid; a few are rather sensible. There is no cabal.
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Rob wrote:
On 8/1/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia Review is not monolithic, of course, any more than Wikipedia is -- you're making the same mistakes that people made about Wikipedia for years. Some people on WR are completely insane; others are just deeply misguided and paranoid; a few are rather sensible. There is no cabal.
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
The person who Sarah (*) is claimed to be is actually notable (has been written about in a number of books), so if we're sure the allegations are all nonsense then maybe Wikipedia should have an article on that other person (**).
(*) That's what she called herself, so I'll go by that. I feel too dumb calling a person "SlimVirgin".
(**) I guess that name has already been said on this mailing list, but I'm going to be extra nice anyway and not mention it.
[offlist]
On 02/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
The person who Sarah (*) is claimed to be is actually notable (has been written about in a number of books), so if we're sure the allegations are all nonsense then maybe Wikipedia should have an article on that other person (**).
Oh, that's beautiful. Thank you for making me laugh over this...
On 02/08/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
[offlist]
Er, oops. Oh, well. That was meant to go privately, but it looks like I messed up... apologies all.
(at least it was frivolous and not personal)
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:> >
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
Rob wrote:
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:> >
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
I'm referring to talk pages. Talk pages aren't part of the encyclopedia, they're for discussion _about_ the encyclopedia. This obviously falls under that.
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Rob wrote:
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:> >
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
I'm referring to talk pages. Talk pages aren't part of the encyclopedia, they're for discussion _about_ the encyclopedia. This obviously falls under that.
In what sense? Will that discussion improve the encyclopedia in some way? Can it possibly be used as the basis of some article?
On 8/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:> >
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly being some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this silly thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly, with at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from the talk page without a trace, and people going around asking for revisions with my question to be oversighted.
Johnleemk
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:> >
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly being some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this silly thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly, with at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from the talk page without a trace,
If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile"?
and people going around asking for revisions with my question to be oversighted.
Who asked for reversions to be oversighted? If I missed those posts, I apologize, but I don't recall seeing people ask for that.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly
being
some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this
silly
thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly,
with
at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from
the
talk page without a trace,
If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile"?
Well, I would certainly laugh it off as the usual bullshit stunts these people pull. I would not demand that we salt the earth as if nobody ever made such allegations.
and people going around asking for revisions with
my question to be oversighted.
Who asked for reversions to be oversighted? If I missed those posts, I apologize, but I don't recall seeing people ask for that.
David Gerard posted about being asked to do it. He told them to bugger off.
Johnleemk
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly
being
some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this
silly
thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly,
with
at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from
the
talk page without a trace,
If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile"?
Well, I would certainly laugh it off as the usual bullshit stunts these people pull. I would not demand that we salt the earth as if nobody ever made such allegations.
I don't see anyone making such demands, though.
and people going around asking for revisions with
my question to be oversighted.
Who asked for reversions to be oversighted? If I missed those posts, I apologize, but I don't recall seeing people ask for that.
David Gerard posted about being asked to do it. He told them to bugger off.
I've looked at David's post; that's not what he said.
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Who asked for reversions to be oversighted? If I missed those posts, I apologize, but I don't recall seeing people ask for that.
David Gerard posted about being asked to do it. He told them to bugger off.
I've looked at David's post; that's not what he said.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/078289.html
"Some have been sending in such revs for oversighting, but have been told quite clearly this isn't covered by the oversight policy."
Seems a pretty accurate summary to me.
On 8/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Who asked for reversions to be oversighted? If I missed those posts, I apologize, but I don't recall seeing people ask for that.
David Gerard posted about being asked to do it. He told them to bugger off.
I've looked at David's post; that's not what he said.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/078289.html
"Some have been sending in such revs for oversighting, but have been told quite clearly this isn't covered by the oversight policy."
Seems a pretty accurate summary to me.
Um, ok. It's not really an accurate summary, but anyway, it seems like a pretty vague, off-the-cuff statement, about something that didn't actually happen, requested by someone we don't know, and rejected by someone else whose name is not revealed. So, why are we still going over this, and *generating* drama where none apparently existed?
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Who asked for reversions to be oversighted? If I missed those posts, I apologize, but I don't recall seeing people ask for that.
David Gerard posted about being asked to do it. He told them to bugger off.
I've looked at David's post; that's not what he said.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/078289.html
"Some have been sending in such revs for oversighting, but have been told quite clearly this isn't covered by the oversight policy."
Seems a pretty accurate summary to me.
Um, ok. It's not really an accurate summary, but anyway, it seems like a pretty vague, off-the-cuff statement, about something that didn't actually happen, requested by someone we don't know, and rejected by someone else whose name is not revealed. So, why are we still going over this, and *generating* drama where none apparently existed?
Most of it lately has been in response to you.
On 8/2/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Who asked for reversions to be oversighted? If I missed those posts, I apologize, but I don't recall seeing people ask for that.
David Gerard posted about being asked to do it. He told them to bugger off.
I've looked at David's post; that's not what he said.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/078289.html
"Some have been sending in such revs for oversighting, but have been told quite clearly this isn't covered by the oversight policy."
Seems a pretty accurate summary to me.
Um, ok. It's not really an accurate summary, but anyway, it seems like a pretty vague, off-the-cuff statement, about something that didn't actually happen, requested by someone we don't know, and rejected by someone else whose name is not revealed. So, why are we still going over this, and *generating* drama where none apparently existed?
Most of it lately has been in response to you.
How amusingly circular; it now turns out that there really wasn't any drama at all, except in the past couple of hours, when I responded to a few posts.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile"?
Well, I would certainly laugh it off as the usual bullshit stunts these people pull. I would not demand that we salt the earth as if nobody ever made such allegations.
I don't see anyone making such demands, though.
"Some have been sending in such revs for oversighting, but have been told quite clearly this isn't covered by the oversight policy." - David Gerard
and people going around asking for revisions with
my question to be oversighted.
Who asked for reversions to be oversighted? If I missed those posts, I apologize, but I don't recall seeing people ask for that.
David Gerard posted about being asked to do it. He told them to bugger
off.
"Some have been sending in such revs for oversighting, but have been told quite clearly this isn't covered by the oversight policy." - David Gerard
Johnleemk
On 02/08/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard posted about being asked to do it. He told them to bugger off.
To clarify: requests were sent to oversight-l. Mostly we've been responding "no." Some have been oversighted. I didn't actually say "bugger off" and I can't say that I care deeply about what's been zapped or that the encyclopedia or project would be greatly enhanced by its presence.
- d.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:> >
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly being some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this silly thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly, with at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from the talk page without a trace,
If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile"?
That's not the proper question. The proper question would be, if Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a secret agent, do you imagine you respond civilly to question of "John, what's all this about you being a secret agent"?
If slashdot ran an article saying that I was really [name redacted], a journalist and secret agent who infiltrated Wikipedia, I don't think I'd get upset. Hopefully I'd even do something witty like put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SV-in-black.png up on my user page.
On 8/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:> >
If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly being some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this silly thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly, with at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from the talk page without a trace,
If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile"?
That's not the proper question. The proper question would be, if Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a secret agent, do you imagine you respond civilly to question of "John, what's all this about you being a secret agent"?
If slashdot ran an article saying that I was really [name redacted], a journalist and secret agent who infiltrated Wikipedia, I don't think I'd get upset. Hopefully I'd even do something witty like put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SV-in-black.png up on my user page.
The allegations are far more outrageous and extensive than that; that's why the pedophile question is indeed apt.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:> >
> If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on Wikipedia about it.
Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly being some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this silly thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly, with at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from the talk page without a trace,
If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile"?
That's not the proper question. The proper question would be, if Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a secret agent, do you imagine you respond civilly to question of "John, what's all this about you being a secret agent"?
If slashdot ran an article saying that I was really [name redacted], a journalist and secret agent who infiltrated Wikipedia, I don't think I'd get upset. Hopefully I'd even do something witty like put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SV-in-black.png up on my user page.
The allegations are far more outrageous and extensive than that; that's why the pedophile question is indeed apt.
No, the pedophile question is not at all apt. I've read the slashdot article, and I've read the article which the slashdot article linked to, and there was nothing approaching pedophilia (or rape, for that matter) in either of them. I also read at least some of the questions deleted from Sarah's talk page, and none of them involved something as outrageous as "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile".
jayjg wrote:
The allegations are far more outrageous and extensive than that; that's why the pedophile question is indeed apt.
This is the first I've heard that she was accused of being a pedophile or anything similar. I just double-checked a couple of the news stories and didn't see anything remotely like that. What allegation are you talking about?
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The allegations are far more outrageous and extensive than that; that's why the pedophile question is indeed apt.
This is the first I've heard that she was accused of being a pedophile or anything similar. I just double-checked a couple of the news stories and didn't see anything remotely like that. What allegation are you talking about?
I went and read the article to see what it is all about. She appears to be accused of failing to act like someone else, uncertified in human behavioural psychology, decrees she should have acted when faced with personal tragedy.
College students. God almighty, next I'll hear they think they're young and smart and they talk loudly like people want to listen to them. Then they'll cry and pout and get depressed when they're in emotional pain, too. Blech. The whole thing is so tasteless. Next someone's going to tell me she wore a skirt once, or jeans. This is just so revolting.
I think I'm going to go puke. It will be more enjoyable than reading any more of this.
KP
jayjg wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly being some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this silly thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly, with at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from the talk page without a trace,
If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile"?
I probably wouldn't be civil at all: well, about WR, I'd try to be nice to the questioner.
I would compare them (WR again) unfavourably to the mighty John Grubor who was the first (and AFAIK only, so far) person to allege on-line that *I* was a pedophile (me, and hundreds of others, it was a favourite tactic ;-), and I would likely be provided with an opportunity to mock them for their lack of knowledge of Internet history when they said "John who?" (if the article on Grubor hadn't been deleted by some nitwit who thinks that history finished with the invention of the Internet, I would be able to point them at a Wikipedia article, but as it is I would have to Google for him).
I would chide them for their lack of anything approaching intellect or imagination, and compare them (again) to small children at the zoo poking the animals through the cage (myself, I'd like to be a polar bear, but a civet would also be perfectly acceptable, in terms of self-defence capabilities).
I would not, however, go screaming around the wiki waving my virtual hands in the air and demanding that any reference to any such allegations be deletionated with extreme prejudice. I would not expect any of my friends or colleagues to do so either, and any such juvenile behaviour indulged in on my behalf would be soundly mocked in turn. I would not attempt to create a policy which said that any web-site which mentioned such allegations should be delinked from any and all pages on the wiki: assuming that any such site exists, it would likely be an integral part of our sources on the early history of the Internet (oh, no, wait…see above for the end of history and consequent deletionation).
For your information, in my position as an Adoptive Father, allegations of pedophilia would be much more worrying to me than anything to do with being some sort of Secret Agent, but happily I am comfortable that neither is true (although some of that stuff Q makes would be kewl).
Whether or not SV is or is not an agent for MI-5, Mossad, the Bavarian Illuminati, or the Gestapo themselves is now lost in the crackle of flames as Good Faith in Wikipedia is destroyed: if "the Kabal" are willing to go to town over something as stupid and trivial as this, what would they be like if a *serious* allegation came along?
HTH HAND
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly being some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this silly thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly, with at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from the talk page without a trace, and people going around asking for revisions with my question to be oversighted.
John, with respect, you don't know the facts. I did not ask for any discussion about this to be oversighted, either directly or indirectly. I'm aware of one request that was made to oversight something (I believe a link or a name, but I don't recall exactly) made in good faith, but not made to David Gerard, and not made by any of the editors you and others have named on this list. I learned about it after the fact, not before. If there were other requests, I don't know about them.
You seem to be flailing around trying to find some blame for something that you can pin on a tiny number of people, but the facts don't fit your hypothesis. For example, there has been discussion of this on Wikipedia, but the discussion fizzled out. The thread is still there, still open, not removed. You could go and discuss it, instead of complaining here that it can't be discussed.
Please get the facts straight before reaching any more conclusions. If there's anything you need to know, you're welcome to e-mail me.
Sarah
On 8/1/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
And characterising it as "appeasement" just further polarises the situation. The fact that someone we don't like would be pleased (or smug, perhaps more accurately) does not stop the fact that the project would be better off for it. I am not calling for this because it's what Wikipedia Review demand - I don't know what Wikipedia Review want, to be frank. I am calling for this because I'm sick of it, and I feel strongly that others are too.
Where do you think all this drama is coming from in the first place? The lunatics at WR have been trying to get wider attention for their conspiracy theories for several years. So you're unwittingly playing into their hands, and in fact, your "please leave" message is already reproduced at WR as the start of a new discussion thread.
Now it would be good if we had better ways to tamp down the drama once it gets started. But asking valuable editors to quit in response to outsiders going after them is completely the wrong way to go about it - you may not like the word "appeasement", but what else would you call it? You're giving the attackers what they want, at the expense of the victims. Now that you're featured on WR, you're going to be under scrutiny yourself - are you willing to quit and abandon all your WP work when they start attacking you? And no, coming back under another name won't help, they are always ready to make sockpuppet accusations.
You really should go take a look at WR, and see the malevolence for yourself.
Well, unlike Andrew, I've actually gone over and looked at the cesspit that is WR a few times (yes, it has members with redeeming value, it's still a cesspit.) I know what the WRites tend to want, and I know I have no inclination whatsoever to appease them or to let them dictate our actions. But that also includes not being afraid to do things that will make them happy in the short term. The Right Thing is still the Right Thing, even if the Wrong People are applauding.
You see, the WR people have come after us before, and they will come after us into the foreseeable future. Nothing we can do to change that. But that's the entire point. They've gone after other people before. Jimbo, Angela, Mindspillage, Raul654, Linuxbeak, David Gerard, Cyde Weys. With a few notable exceptions (like their driving Katefan0 off the project, or calling the cops on Phil Sandifer), we *do* ignore the mountains of crap they generate; we only respond when clear lines of behavior have been crossed. We didn't start eradicating links or redacting mentions on behalf of any of those editors; were they somehow less worthy of protection? No, what is different about this mess is the inability of certain participants in the fracas to leave well enough alone.
When the siege mentality has set in, that's the point at which an editor needs to take a rest, for the good of the project.
On 8/1/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 7/29/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.
Steve, could you point out exactly what I have been "rampantly reverting" in this regard?
Between 03:22 and 22:12 on July 27, at least 8 questions about That Slashdot Thread were posted by various users on Slim's talk page, and systematically removed by you, ElinorD, and Crum375.
Wait a minute, so 3 different editors removed a total of 8 questions. Out of curiosity, exactly how many did I remove during that "rampant reverting"? No need to reply, the answer is one.
One of the things that has marred these kinds of discussions is rampant hyperbole. Another is that far too much of it is directed at slamming other editors, rather than discussing issues. I don't see any particular reason this discussion would add any value to the wikien-l thread, but if people feel that they must discuss it, let's try to do it in a way that generates light, not heat.
Jayjg wrote:
On 8/1/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Steve, could you point out exactly what I have been "rampantly reverting" in this regard?
Between 03:22 and 22:12 on July 27, at least 8 questions about That Slashdot Thread were posted by various users on Slim's talk page, and systematically removed by you, ElinorD, and Crum375.
Wait a minute, so 3 different editors removed a total of 8 questions. Out of curiosity, exactly how many did I remove during that "rampant reverting"? No need to reply, the answer is one.
I was afraid you were going to have that reaction. You'll notice that I did not say that you had been "rampantly reverting", but rather, that a set of three editors had been.
I also conceded that:
I suppose "rampantly" might have been a smidge too strong.
and continued (in what was indeed an attempt to discuss issues):
The point remains, however, that a group of editors unilaterally decided, without explanation, that a certain question was Absolutely Forbidden on Slim's talk page. I understand the reasoning behind the deletions, of course, no need to rehash all that now, but my own feeling is that the cure may have become worse than the disease.
Steve Summit schreef:
The point remains, however, that a group of editors unilaterally decided, without explanation, that a certain question was Absolutely Forbidden on Slim's talk page.
It's actions like this that make Wikipedia Review a better news source about what is happening at Wikipedia than Wikipedia itself.
It's very useful too that they link liberally to Wikipedia, so you can get both sides of the story just by following WR alone.
Eugene
On 7/29/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
But is there anything to it? Or is it just nasty gossip? If you want to gossip, join the Navy.
Is there anything to this?
# 19:59, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) restored "Mordechai Vanunu" (813 revisions restored) # 19:57, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "Mordechai Vanunu" (PI) # 19:55, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) restored "Robert Maxwell" (177 revisions restored) # 19:54, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "Robert Maxwell" (PI) # 19:52, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Slimv" (User page deleted) # 19:51, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Slimv" (PI) # 19:50, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) restored "Pan Am Flight 103" (1109 revisions restored) # 19:45, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "Pan Am Flight 103" (PI) # 19:42, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) restored "Pierre Salinger" (101 revisions restored) # 19:40, 3 June 2006 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "Pierre Salinger" (PI)
This crap has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Feel free to remove it when and where you find it.
Maintaining the integrity of WP editing and WP editors has everything to do with writing an encyclopedia. Responsible discussion of attacks on either is appropriate. As for notability, what may appear on WR etc may not be widely noticed, but what appears on slashdot is another matter. The only reason for hiding the truth is the fear that it might be damaging. Now in this case anyone knowing even a little of the story can see that the fear is wildly excessive. So the net result is that the ignorant will thing we're evil, and the slightly more knowledgeable will think we're cowards. I don't think we're either--I think its the trap of trying to justify our previous errors by insisting on repeating them, so we can pretend to ourselves that they aren't errors. All concealment looks suspicious, and the resort to it is self-defeating. Had we not concealed, this discussion--which is now permanently recorded-- also would not have occurred. So the net result is that we have multiplied the effectiveness of the slashdot story.
On 7/30/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
This crap has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Feel free to remove it when and where you find it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
Maintaining the integrity of WP editing and WP editors has everything to do with writing an encyclopedia. Responsible discussion of attacks on either is appropriate. As for notability, what may appear on WR etc may not be widely noticed, but what appears on slashdot is another matter. The only reason for hiding the truth is the fear that it might be damaging. Now in this case anyone knowing even a little of the story can see that the fear is wildly excessive. So the net result is that the ignorant will thing we're evil, and the slightly more knowledgeable will think we're cowards. I don't think we're either--I think its the trap of trying to justify our previous errors by insisting on repeating them, so we can pretend to ourselves that they aren't errors. All concealment looks suspicious, and the resort to it is self-defeating. Had we not concealed, this discussion--which is now permanently recorded-- also would not have occurred. So the net result is that we have multiplied the effectiveness of the slashdot story.
On 7/30/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
This crap has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Feel free to remove it when and where you find it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
See related entry under [[AACS encryption key controversy]]. Quite often, an attempt at suppressing something will result in its wide distribution (this MUST be something good if someone doesn't want me to know it!), while ignoring it will deny it attention and cause it to fade out pretty quickly.