On 12/09/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
[wrong thread david :)] On 9/12/07, steven rubenstein slrubenstein@yahoo.com wrote: [snip]
(PS by all means, go ahead and make some dismissive comment about me. The great thing about not being on the listserve is, it doesn't matter to me)
Okay.
Prior to Steven's post no one was attacking anyone. There was no yelling, no accusations, no burnings at the stake. As far as I'm aware admins are not required by policy to have email this user enabled, although it's a good practice. Multiple people had pointed out that it was easy to end up in that state accidently. All in all a polite and resonable conversation.
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
How is wikien-l "behind their backs"? It's a public mailing list.
On 13/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
How is wikien-l "behind their backs"? It's a public mailing list.
Do they subscribe to wikien-l? Were they notified?
: (
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
How is wikien-l "behind their backs"? It's a public mailing list.
Do they subscribe to wikien-l? Were they notified?
: (
Whether or not email is enabled is public information. There is no need to notify someone before publishing it.
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
"listed behind their backs"? "hidden from Google"? Um.
We're writing an encyclopedia here. Occasionally, we need to compile lists of names of people working on the project and doing this or that, in order to help the project run efficiently.
Is there some kind of problem here? Are we assuming that any list with usernames on it, no matter how trivial or banal, is now somehow a dangerous damaging thing that can't be permitted without the consent of those mentioned?
Proportion, people, proportion. There are some really unpleasantly confrontational undertones being assumed here...
On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
"listed behind their backs"? "hidden from Google"? Um.
We're writing an encyclopedia here. Occasionally, we need to compile lists of names of people working on the project and doing this or that, in order to help the project run efficiently.
Is there some kind of problem here? Are we assuming that any list with usernames on it, no matter how trivial or banal, is now somehow a dangerous damaging thing that can't be permitted without the consent of those mentioned?
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
There are dozens of reasons why someone might not have email enabled - having left Wikipaedia, being on wikibreak, odd privacy concerns, not involved in blocking people, having offered alternative off-wiki communication, not knowing their email was disabled, etc.
My point is, you can't understand why just from looking at a list, but everyone has a reason, and that makes all the difference.
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
There are dozens of reasons why someone might not have email enabled - having left Wikipaedia, being on wikibreak, odd privacy concerns, not involved in blocking people, having offered alternative off-wiki communication, not knowing their email was disabled, etc.
My point is, you can't understand why just from looking at a list, but everyone has a reason, and that makes all the difference.
I don't believe anyone ever said these people might not have reasons for it. It's a trivial note - look, here's a problem, it affects these people; it was dashed off in five minutes. That's *all it is*.
It's not a list of "these are bad people". It's not revealing confidential information. It's not an indepth study and analysis of individuals. It's a note of a known problem*, and - helpfully - a list of some people known to be affected by it, plus implicitly a reminder to non-admins that it might be a good idea to check. I don't see any reason people should be expected to go to great lengths to make sure that no-one has any possible reason to misinterpret them when all they're doing is making a quick helpful comment.
I think I need to return to the phrase "otherwise no-one would ever get any work done", which seems quite appropriate.
On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
There are dozens of reasons why someone might not have email enabled - having left Wikipaedia, being on wikibreak, odd privacy concerns, not involved in blocking people, having offered alternative off-wiki communication, not knowing their email was disabled, etc.
My point is, you can't understand why just from looking at a list, but everyone has a reason, and that makes all the difference.
I don't believe anyone ever said these people might not have reasons for it. It's a trivial note - look, here's a problem, it affects these people; it was dashed off in five minutes. That's *all it is*.
It's not a list of "these are bad people". It's not revealing confidential information. It's not an indepth study and analysis of individuals. It's a note of a known problem*, and - helpfully - a list of some people known to be affected by it, plus implicitly a reminder to non-admins that it might be a good idea to check. I don't see any reason people should be expected to go to great lengths to make sure that no-one has any possible reason to misinterpret them when all they're doing is making a quick helpful comment.
I think I need to return to the phrase "otherwise no-one would ever get any work done", which seems quite appropriate.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
- a presumed problem, based on a known issue in similar circumstances
elsewhere, but that's pretty much the same thing.
Couldn't we just have statistics? 'Out of X admins checked, Y (Z%) had email disabled. Please check to confirm your email in enabled, especially if you block people.'
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
- a presumed problem, based on a known issue in similar circumstances
elsewhere, but that's pretty much the same thing.
Couldn't we just have statistics? 'Out of X admins checked, Y (Z%) had email disabled. Please check to confirm your email in enabled, especially if you block people.'
...so a thousand admins need to check their preferences, rather than those where we actually have a problem. This just wastes the time of almost everyone, rather than helping the affected people solve the problem. What does it gain us?
On 13/09/2007, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
- a presumed problem, based on a known issue in similar circumstances
elsewhere, but that's pretty much the same thing.
Couldn't we just have statistics? 'Out of X admins checked, Y (Z%) had email disabled. Please check to confirm your email in enabled, especially if you block people.'
...so a thousand admins need to check their preferences, rather than those where we actually have a problem. This just wastes the time of almost everyone, rather than helping the affected people solve the problem. What does it gain us?
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Statistics are good if you want to say there is a problem with unenabled emails, talk page notes are good if you want to bug certain people to fix things.
Wasn't Autowikibrowser designed to make this sort of thing easy?
On 9/13/07, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I don't believe anyone ever said these people might not have reasons for it. It's a trivial note - look, here's a problem, it affects these people; it was dashed off in five minutes. That's *all it is*.
It's not a list of "these are bad people". It's not revealing confidential information. It's not an indepth study and analysis of individuals. It's a note of a known problem*, and - helpfully - a list of some people known to be affected by it, plus implicitly a reminder to non-admins that it might be a good idea to check. I don't see any reason people should be expected to go to great lengths to make sure that no-one has any possible reason to misinterpret them when all they're doing is making a quick helpful comment.
I think I need to return to the phrase "otherwise no-one would ever get any work done", which seems quite appropriate.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
- a presumed problem, based on a known issue in similar circumstances
elsewhere, but that's pretty much the same thing.
I agree with all of the points made in this post, and I found it rather surprising that people objected to the list so strongly.
-Kat
On 9/12/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
Frankly, the constant insistence that we can never ever mention ANYTHING about Wikipedia users anywhere is rather problematic. We are here to work on a project. If the normal amount of communication and discussion needed to work on this project is too much and bothers your sense of privacy, kindly find something else to do.
-Matt
On 9/12/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
on 9/13/07 2:28 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
If the normal amount of communication and discussion needed to work on this project is too much and bothers your sense of privacy, kindly find something else to do.
Matthew,
Enough is enough! If you had been sitting across from this person would you have said this exact same thing to their face?
And, how on earth does "kindly find something else to do" advance a discussion?
Marc Riddell
On 9/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 9/12/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
on 9/13/07 2:28 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
If the normal amount of communication and discussion needed to work on this project is too much and bothers your sense of privacy, kindly find something else to do.
Matthew,
Enough is enough! If you had been sitting across from this person would you have said this exact same thing to their face?
And, how on earth does "kindly find something else to do" advance a discussion?
Marc Riddell
Marc: I don't know about Matthew, but I definitely would (and do) say things like this to someone's face. There is nothing really 'mean' about the statement. Furthermore, the whole point of saying something like this is not to further a discussion, but to convey the idea that there is no reason to continue a discussion about something so completely trivial. Not everything has to be discussed to the ground.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
on 9/13/07 3:59 PM, Silas Snider at swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 9/12/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Erm, people may prefer to be contacted directly before being listed behind their backs. Okay, so the Google ratings of the list are not that high, considering it is hidden from Google, but still... there are mirrors not hidden from Google.
on 9/13/07 2:28 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
If the normal amount of communication and discussion needed to work on this project is too much and bothers your sense of privacy, kindly find something else to do.
Matthew,
Enough is enough! If you had been sitting across from this person would you have said this exact same thing to their face?
And, how on earth does "kindly find something else to do" advance a discussion?
Marc Riddell
Marc: I don't know about Matthew, but I definitely would (and do) say things like this to someone's face. There is nothing really 'mean' about the statement. Furthermore, the whole point of saying something like this is not to further a discussion, but to convey the idea that there is no reason to continue a discussion about something so completely trivial. Not everything has to be discussed to the ground.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
Silas,
Then say something to that effect, like "I don't see any reason to continue this discussion about something I find so completely trivial". This doesn't shut the person down and breed more anger. Perhaps, with further discussion, they could even convince you that the subject is worth discussing.
Marc
On 9/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Enough is enough! If you had been sitting across from this person would you have said this exact same thing to their face?
Yes, given a similar quantity of exasperation with things.
And, how on earth does "kindly find something else to do" advance a discussion?
There is, IMO, nothing to advance.
I apologize for the tone, but not the substance. If normal communications like this bother you, if you consider being ever mentioned or discussed in anything but a personal communication with you a breach of privacy and an affront, then frankly the project is not for you and you need to find something else to do.
Wikipedia is not therapy. Wikipedia's purpose is not to keep every possible contributor happy. We are engaged in a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, and I think a level of paranoia that considers the list Greg posted to be an affront or an invasion of privacy is not helpful to our project, and not compatible with it.
-Matt
On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, the constant insistence that we can never ever mention ANYTHING about Wikipedia users anywhere is rather problematic. We are here to work on a project.
There are alternatives.
If the normal amount of communication and discussion needed to work on this project is too much and bothers your sense of privacy, kindly find something else to do.
-Matt
Sorry, I can't get Wikipaedia to blank things, which indicates a problem in the system which needs to be fixed. Especially considering Wikipaedia Review excised some of those same things from their servers, no questions asked.
On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to work on a project. -Matt
*You* are here to build an encylcopaedia. The Wikipaedia community has already stated loud and clear they do not want my help with that. So y'know what? I'm sorry I wasted my time writing a Good Article and a bunch of other stuff.
I am here because Wikipaedia is seriously hurting people, often being a worse attack site than Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and it needs to stop.
On 9/13/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to work on a project. -Matt
*You* are here to build an encylcopaedia. The Wikipaedia community has already stated loud and clear they do not want my help with that.
Your interpretation. Myself, I think what has been said is that they are uncomfortable with how permitting editing through Tor allows vandals and sockpuppeteers to evade scrutiny, and that unfortunately this also means that editors of good will who desire to use Tor for reasons of anonymity cannot.
I am here because Wikipaedia is seriously hurting people, often being a worse attack site than Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and it needs to stop.
Ridiculous hyperbole.
This is not to say that there are not problems - there are and sometimes they are serious.
However, a comparison between the two projects shows that Wikipedia is trying to be a useful resource and ED is trying to get a rise out of people for their own amusement by publishing whatever hurts those they don't like. I think that's a major difference, personally.
-Matt
-Matt
On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to work on a project. -Matt
*You* are here to build an encylcopaedia. The Wikipaedia community has already stated loud and clear they do not want my help with that.
Your interpretation. Myself, I think what has been said is that they are uncomfortable with how permitting editing through Tor allows vandals and sockpuppeteers to evade scrutiny, and that unfortunately this also means that editors of good will who desire to use Tor for reasons of anonymity cannot.
I have already explained that there are methods of destructive editing and Sybil attack control better than simply getting rid of all edits from Tor.
In any case, I used Tor, and they didn't want me to edit. Case closed.
I am here because Wikipaedia is seriously hurting people, often being a worse attack site than Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and it needs to stop.
Ridiculous hyperbole.
This is not to say that there are not problems - there are and sometimes they are serious.
However, a comparison between the two projects shows that Wikipedia is trying to be a useful resource and ED is trying to get a rise out of people for their own amusement by publishing whatever hurts those they don't like. I think that's a major difference, personally.
-Matt
Is is so ridiculous?
If a person who has been attacked from Encyclopaedia Dramatica tries to get material removed, Encyclopaedia Dramatica makes the article on that person worse. If the person tries to blank the page on him or her, Encyclopaedia Dramatica calls the person a vandal and blocks him or her. As far as Encyclopaedia Dramatica is concerned, they have a right to do this because of *their* free speech and *their* policies.
If a living person, who is not particularly notable, has an article about him or her on Wikipaedia... well, what then? There are those on Wikipaedia who would set the threshhold for notability very low, and refuse to delete an article on request from any subject who met that level of notability. Enough that they often win such debates. Hell, what happened to Mr. D. Bra ndt? He complained, and his article got worse.
And of course, Wikipaedia lets Google index all namespaces, so if you have a user page, you may as well have a biography. Four years after someone is banned, negative Wikipaedia pages on him or her still show up on top of Google. Does being banned from Wikipaedia make a person notable all of the sudden? Some banned users have edited under or disclosed their real names - others use long-standing pseudonyms.
Apparently, a banned user who publicly reveals himself to be a pedophile who would have a relationship with a child if he has the chance can get his user/talk pages blanked, but not a banned user who posted semi-nude pictures which, so far as we know, were of herself, although to be fair there wasn't really any evidence one way or the other as to whether the pictures were of her.
And then Wikipaedia comes up with justifications such as 'banned users are assholes - they deserve it'. At least Encyclopaedia Dramatica doesn't tell you that you deserve it, they just say 'but it's made of lulz!' or something.
And then of course Wikipaedia says even more cruel things to the person - just like Encylcopaedia Dramatica.
And Wikipaedia has higher Google rankings than Encyclopaedia Dramatica.
As for Wikipaedia Review? Well, they may be an attack site, but Wikipaedia makes them look like gentlemen. I've had a much easier time getting personal things about myself removed from Wikipaedia Review than from Wikipaedia, and it's not like the Wikipaedia Review doesn't hate me.
On 9/13/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Hell, what happened to Mr. D. Bra ndt? He complained, and his article got worse.
Article?
View source From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for Daniel Brandt This page is currently protected, and can only be edited by administrators. Some templates and site interface pages are permanently protected due to visibility. Occasionally, articles are temporarily protected because of editing disputes. The reason for protection can be found in the protection log. You can discuss this page with others. If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change, start a new section and insert the text {{editprotected}} followed by your request. An administrator may then make the change on your behalf. You may request unprotection of the page.
And...
View source From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for Talk:Daniel Brandt This talk page has been protected to prevent creation. For possible reasons, consult the criteria for speedy deletion, or articles for deletion, or this article's entry on articles for deletion. Specific information may be found by viewing the activity logs for this page or by contacting the administrator who deleted the page. If you reached this page by following a link from another article, you can help Wikipedia by removing inbound links. Restoration can be discussed at deletion review.
Lovely.
And then Wikipaedia comes up with justifications such as 'banned users are assholes - they deserve it'. At least Encyclopaedia Dramatica doesn't tell you that you deserve it, they just say 'but it's made of lulz!' or something.
I realize I'm not (technically) banned [1] but if I get a wild hair and attempt to engage anyone in a serious discussion about Daniel Brandt, I'm pretty sure that my "good standing" would take a steep nose dive.
On the other hand I could give a fuck less about Encyclopedia Dramatica [2] or whatever they might publish about me. If it's stupid I'll ignore it. If it's entertaining I might read it a time or two. But in neither case would I lose any sleep over it.
—C.W.
[1] RFAR/CW: "The [Arbitration] Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time." [2] (except that our article about said site was, much like Brandt's, deleted for inappropriate and wholly political reasons)
On 17/09/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
I realize I'm not (technically) banned [1] but if I get a wild hair and attempt to engage anyone in a serious discussion about D. Bra ndt, I'm pretty sure that my "good standing" would take a steep nose dive.
Well, I am quite banned, and I haven't been in good standing since 3 June 2007, so what have I got to lose?
Let's see, his article lasted nearly two years before being blanked and redirected, despite his strong objections throughout most of that time period. 14 AfDs from November 2005 to June 2007 - 14 AfDs in 20 months.
It is well known that I strongly disapprove of many of his actions. However, Wikipaedia has caused him great pain, for no good reason, and I do acknowledge that those actions I disapprove of happened *after* the deletion of his article was refused.
On the other hand I could give a fuck less about Encyclopedia Dramatica [2] or whatever they might publish about me. If it's stupid I'll ignore it. If it's entertaining I might read it a time or two. But in neither case would I lose any sleep over it.
Some of us do care. Still, WP is worse.
—C.W.
[1] RFAR/CW: "The [Arbitration] Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time." [2] (except that our article about said site was, much like Brandt's, deleted for inappropriate and wholly political reasons)
Prior to Steven's post no one was attacking anyone
I just want it known that what I said was meant to be a joke, which I thought would be obvious.
On 9/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to work on a project. -Matt
*You* are here to build an encylcopaedia. The Wikipaedia community has already stated loud and clear they do not want my help with that.
Your interpretation. Myself, I think what has been said is that they are uncomfortable with how permitting editing through Tor allows vandals and sockpuppeteers to evade scrutiny, and that unfortunately this also means that editors of good will who desire to use Tor for reasons of anonymity cannot.
I am here because Wikipaedia is seriously hurting people, often being a worse attack site than Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and it needs to stop.
Ridiculous hyperbole.
This is not to say that there are not problems - there are and sometimes they are serious.
However, a comparison between the two projects shows that Wikipedia is trying to be a useful resource and ED is trying to get a rise out of people for their own amusement by publishing whatever hurts those they don't like. I think that's a major difference, personally.
-Matt
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l