Recently, [[User:Kamryn Matika]] asked on the RfA page for clarification regarding the ban on linking to attack sites imposed in the MONGO arbitration; the specific situation she was involved in was the insertion of a link to source the [[Essjay controversy]] article. Fred Bauder has now responded:
-- begin response -- Arbitration rulings are not policy. They apply only to the specific situation considered, in this case, a link to dem attic. Inserting such a link into Wikipedia is a blockable offense, although, a warning is appropriate if it seems the user was unaware of the status of that site. In your case, the 24 hour block seems appropriate as you were apparently both aware and warned. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Attempts to generalize the remedy in that case into more general policy have not been happy. I don't think it is good general policy. Such a remedy should only be applied in egregious circumstances, after a hearing which considers the particular site. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC) -- end response --
Unfortunately, this response is full of contradictions. Bauder is claiming that the ruling in question is "not policy", that it applies only to a "specific situation", and shouldn't be "generalized" and is not "good general policy"; furthermore, it should be applied only in "egregious circumstances" to particular sites that have been considered in a hearing. However, he is also saying that it's proper to block Kamryn because she was "warned"... regardless of the facts that:
1) the link she inserted was not to a site that has been the subject of a specific hearing 2) the link was arguably a relevant and proper reference for the article in which it was being inserted, and not an "egregious circumstance" 3) a "warning" that is not backed by valid policy is not a valid basis for a block, or else anybody could "warn" anybody about anything based on their own pet peeves, and expect it to be enforced. Can I just order people not to use the letter "w" any more, if I don't like it? 4) "Enforcing" this non-policy on relevant links to source an article seem to be precisely the sort of thing that's an 'attempt to generalize' the ruling in ways that are not 'good general policy'.
Furthermore, Bauder followed up his response by editing Kamryn's original posting to remove the link to the particular instance she was discussing. This link was to a Wikipedia diff, not directly to a so-called "attack site", and was necessary for readers to understand exactly what is being discussed. In doing so, he also reworded Kamryn's comments, putting in a reference to "the outlawed site" that wasn't there before (and doesn't make sense, since the original link wasn't actually to the specific site that was "outlawed" in the original ruling). Of course, with the link to the diff removed, it's hard for anybody to actually check on this, and see that the link was to a different site than the one covered specifically in the ArbCom ruling, and what context the link was made in.
Incidentally, today's New York Times Magazine article on Wikipedia includes a specific mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica and its attacks on Slim Virgin. I guess if anything that even refers to an attack site is itself an attack site, then The New York Times is now an attack site.
On 7/1/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Unfortunately, this response is full of contradictions. Bauder is claiming that the ruling in question is "not policy", that it applies only to a "specific situation", and shouldn't be "generalized" and is not "good general policy"; furthermore, it should be applied only in "egregious circumstances" to particular sites that have been considered in a hearing. However, he is also saying that it's proper to block Kamryn because she was "warned"...
Bauder could have chosen his words more carefully, but there is not really any contradiction. As he says, arbitration rulings are not policy and should not be taken as such. What he leave out is the implicit corollary that rulings are applications of policy to particular situations, and similar situations ought to be approached in similar
The crucial point is that attempts to take the rulings from the Mongo case and turn them into *general* rules have not been constructive. The ways in which some people have chosen to extrapolate from the Mongo case have failed to take into account the nuances of the rulings.
The "links to attack site" principle in the Mongo case should not be read in isolation from the other principles in that case. Specifically, it should be read alongside the principles discussing harassment (and especially the "support of harassment" principle, which emphasises that linkers ought to be considered responsible for their linking). It should also be read alongside the "guilt by association" principle.
The other main way in which attempted generalisations from the Mongo principles have been problematic (aside from reading the principles in isolation) is the tendency for people to seek to supply a new definition for "attack sites". The Mongo case focuses heavily on the disclosure of private personal information, and harassment, both of which, I should point out, are behaviours which are blockable if performed on-wiki.
Part of these problems are to do with the way in which arbitration decisions are structured, which, with its highly condensed and simplified elements, can sometimes be prone to being misunderstood. But that's a debate for another time.
The thrust of the Mongo principles was essentially to say two things: firstly, that links to external sites which engage in certain types of behaviour which would be blockable on-wiki should be avoided, and secondly, that while no guilt by association test applies, people who link to external content are responsible for what they link to, and should not act to aid or abet behaviour like harassment or disclosure of personal information when it occurs off-site.
I don't want to comment on the particular situation involving this user, I just wanted to emphasise that that is what the Mongo case was about, and that, I believe, is more or less what Fred was getting at.
On 01/07/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Fred Bauder has now responded:
-- begin response -- Arbitration rulings are not policy. They apply only to the specific situation considered, in this case, a link to dem attic.
It was only through some extremely tedious talk-page-comment-following and history-grubbing that I managed to discover that "dem attic" is some kind of bizarre way of referring to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Could people please do us the favor of eschewing private jargon for plain English? (And no, this doesn't fall under the same category as using shortcuts like "WP:3RR".)
On 7/2/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 01/07/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Fred Bauder has now responded:
-- begin response -- Arbitration rulings are not policy. They apply only to the specific situation considered, in this case, a link to dem attic.
It was only through some extremely tedious talk-page-comment-following and history-grubbing that I managed to discover that "dem attic" is some kind of bizarre way of referring to Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Yeah, I did a similar search to try to figure out what the hell dem attic was, and wound up finding out exactly the information that is trying to be suppressed.
Of course, I fear now that maybe I can be banned from this mailing list for mentioning that.
As far as the fact of Fred Bauder editing Kamryn's comment goes, I reverted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...
-Salaskan
On 7/9/07, Salaskan shinywater@gmail.com wrote:
As far as the fact of Fred Bauder editing Kamryn's comment goes, I reverted it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...
-Salaskan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
um no. fred already reverted my comment back to it's original version; you restored his edit.
Is there any reason why everyone exclusively focuses on Wikipedia Review in this tired debate, but never once mentions Wikitruth.info, Conservapedia, and Free Republic, which are freely linked to across Wikipedia, and also feature outing content?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 06:13:59 -0700, "Joe Szilagyi" szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any reason why everyone exclusively focuses on Wikipedia Review in this tired debate, but never once mentions Wikitruth.info, Conservapedia, and Free Republic, which are freely linked to across Wikipedia, and also feature outing content?
At a guess, it's because their structure is different - as websites rather than forums the content is more settled and liable to have an editorial policy of some kind. I hope they are not linked as sources, though, and that there are no links to content which actively harasses or outs people.
Guy (JzG)
G'day Joe,
Is there any reason why everyone exclusively focuses on Wikipedia Review in this tired debate, but never once mentions Wikitruth.info, Conservapedia, and Free Republic, which are freely linked to across Wikipedia, and also feature outing content?
Why doesn't anyone give a damn about Wikitruth? Maybe you should ask them why, despite their best efforts, they remain irrelevant. I suspect the answer will be enlightening, or at least giggle-worthy.
Conservapedia isn't an attack site. It's a rival "encyclopaedia" set up to protest the idea that a global project may not represent extreme right American values. It's irrelevant, too. We might have a giggle at its expense from time-to-time, but I don't know that we actually rue its existence, as such.
Unlike the other two, Free Republic is actually worth paying attention to, if you swing that way (I don't[0]). I don't see why Wikipedians should cower in fear from it, though.
Now, what sayest thou on that slimy mud hole, that wretched hive of scum and villainy, WikiAbuse?
[0] I lost interest in echo chambers back in my 'blogging days, and I certainly have no time for right-wing variants of same.