http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo. _________________________________________________________________ Search and win with BigSnapSearch.com http://www.bigsnapsearch.com
On 23/04/2008, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Personally, I welcome lobby and activist groups to Wikipedia - (1) they quickly get NPOVed (2) we always recruit good new Wikipedians from them. This has happened over and over.
- d.
I don't think you'd quite say that if you read what this lot were planning.
http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia2.pdf
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:19:17 +0100 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Israeli cabal tries a hostile takeover
On 23/04/2008, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Personally, I welcome lobby and activist groups to Wikipedia - (1) they quickly get NPOVed (2) we always recruit good new Wikipedians from them. This has happened over and over.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Be a superhero and win! Play the Iron Man Mashup Game http://www.ironmanmashup.co.uk
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I don't think you'd quite say that if you read what this lot were planning.
http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia2.pdf
While it's likely that this is an accurate archive, it doesn't help that it's hosted by an "anti Israel" site.
It's usually apparent when an article is slanted, so I doubt CAMERA will end up changing many minds.
But. All this super-organized pov-pushing, sockpuppeting, etc. (has anything of this scale and precision been planned before?) could undermine confidence in wikipedia as an institution, which could be damaging to the encyclopedia's health.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Christiano Moreschi
moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I don't think you'd quite say that if you read what this lot were planning.
http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia2.pdf
While it's likely that this is an accurate archive, it doesn't help that it's hosted by an "anti Israel" site.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think the push by CAMERA is probably a reaction to the gradual movement of articles which relate to the Arab-Israeli toward neutral point of view. We just need to keep that up, not panic about organized efforts. We have alway had to deal with disorganized efforts.
Fred
It's usually apparent when an article is slanted, so I doubt CAMERA will end up changing many minds.
But. All this super-organized pov-pushing, sockpuppeting, etc. (has anything of this scale and precision been planned before?) could undermine confidence in wikipedia as an institution, which could be damaging to the encyclopedia's health.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Christiano Moreschi
moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I don't think you'd quite say that if you read what this lot were
planning.
http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia2.pdf
While it's likely that this is an accurate archive, it doesn't help that it's hosted by an "anti Israel" site.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 23/04/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think the push by CAMERA is probably a reaction to the gradual movement of articles which relate to the Arab-Israeli toward neutral point of view. We just need to keep that up, not panic about organized efforts. We have alway had to deal with disorganized efforts.
I question the blogosphere "o noez the zionists are coming" response's sanity factor based on fingering Jayjg as an agent of CAMERA. Er, what.
- d.
The whole rush to ban anyone associated with this group is disturbing, and not receiving much in the way of review. Christiano has so far blocked two editors and topic banned another one for a year, based on what in my mind is a non-review of their actual edits. This reminds me of the Harvard class involved in editing the Waterboarding article - some of the same people, in fact. We don't ban people for having a point of view. Having a point of view isn't a violation of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. We don't ban people for knowing eachother off wiki, or sharing a point of view that they discuss off-wiki. We don't ban people for being associated with strange people like Zeq, who claimed to marshal an "army" to go to "war" on Wikipedia in the e-mail that is attributed to him. Or we shouldn't, anyway, since now apparently we do ban people for these reasons. What makes this more problematic is that the folks being banned are ostensibly pro-Israel POV warriors - and the "evidence" against them consists of e-mails represented on electronicintifada.com, a very strongly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian activist organization. I put quotes around evidence because there barely is any evidence on that page except the efforts of junior amateur sleuths trying to connect editors to e-mail addresses.
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/04/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think the push by CAMERA is probably a reaction to the gradual
movement
of articles which relate to the Arab-Israeli toward neutral point of view. We just need to keep that up, not panic about organized efforts.
We
have alway had to deal with disorganized efforts.
I question the blogosphere "o noez the zionists are coming" response's sanity factor based on fingering Jayjg as an agent of CAMERA. Er, what.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am puzzled on multiple fronts by this email. Was the Harvard law class not a randomly chosen class of law students, but a group of people who had met in order to make waterboarding sound legal in public discourse? Because otherwise I don't see the analogy. The only other people CM has 'banned' are people following Zeq's instructions and who give their accounts away in the "evidence", or were editing, clearly disruptively, from the CAMERA office. I'm sure the former, at least, could have their bans lifted if they repudiated the supposed methods and agreed to some form of mentorship. On the contrary, the attitude has been "yes, so what. Why can't you see, Wikipedia is biased, why aren't you worried about what the other lot are doing, we're just trying to fix it, are you on *their* side?" which is precisely the attitude we don't really have time for.
I wouldn't call that enormous subpage of AN/I "not much review", but whatever.
RR
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The whole rush to ban anyone associated with this group is disturbing, and not receiving much in the way of review. Christiano has so far blocked two editors and topic banned another one for a year, based on what in my mind is a non-review of their actual edits. This reminds me of the Harvard class involved in editing the Waterboarding article - some of the same people, in fact. We don't ban people for having a point of view. Having a point of view isn't a violation of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. We don't ban people for knowing eachother off wiki, or sharing a point of view that they discuss off-wiki. We don't ban people for being associated with strange people like Zeq, who claimed to marshal an "army" to go to "war" on Wikipedia in the e-mail that is attributed to him. Or we shouldn't, anyway, since now apparently we do ban people for these reasons. What makes this more problematic is that the folks being banned are ostensibly pro-Israel POV warriors - and the "evidence" against them consists of e-mails represented on electronicintifada.com, a very strongly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian activist organization. I put quotes around evidence because there barely is any evidence on that page except the efforts of junior amateur sleuths trying to connect editors to e-mail addresses.
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/04/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think the push by CAMERA is probably a reaction to the gradual
movement
of articles which relate to the Arab-Israeli toward neutral point of view. We just need to keep that up, not panic about organized efforts.
We
have alway had to deal with disorganized efforts.
I question the blogosphere "o noez the zionists are coming" response's sanity factor based on fingering Jayjg as an agent of CAMERA. Er, what.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The fact that the page is enormous doesn't mean the review was comprehensive - it absolutely was not, in my opinion. The comparison between the Harvard class event and this one is this: Both were coordinated attempts to influence content on Wikipedia, and both inspired a degree of hysteria and proposals to ban anyone related. I'm hopefully that the comparison will continue, where in this second case cooler heads prevail and the bans are not left in place (barring the presentation of some significant evidence of on-wiki disruption).
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
I am puzzled on multiple fronts by this email. Was the Harvard law class not a randomly chosen class of law students, but a group of people who had met in order to make waterboarding sound legal in public discourse? Because otherwise I don't see the analogy. The only other people CM has 'banned' are people following Zeq's instructions and who give their accounts away in the "evidence", or were editing, clearly disruptively, from the CAMERA office. I'm sure the former, at least, could have their bans lifted if they repudiated the supposed methods and agreed to some form of mentorship. On the contrary, the attitude has been "yes, so what. Why can't you see, Wikipedia is biased, why aren't you worried about what the other lot are doing, we're just trying to fix it, are you on *their* side?" which is precisely the attitude we don't really have time for.
I wouldn't call that enormous subpage of AN/I "not much review", but whatever.
RR
I think you are ignoring the enormous difference in how they intended to influence content, which difference should be reflected in how they are handled.
And as for "comprehensive" review, I don't see what precisely you think needed to be added mentioned in your mail; I did mention the fairly good reasons for the topic-ban. If you feel that the level of review is problematic, you should feel free to respond there rather than here. Also, given that the information has been disseminated at AN/I and literally dozens of talkpages, I wouldn't feel overly concerned that it isn't receiving sufficient review. Reading and deciding its not worth posting to object are also forms of review - in fact, pretty much what WP is built on.
RR
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that the page is enormous doesn't mean the review was comprehensive
- it absolutely was not, in my opinion. The comparison between the Harvard
class event and this one is this: Both were coordinated attempts to influence content on Wikipedia, and both inspired a degree of hysteria and proposals to ban anyone related. I'm hopefully that the comparison will continue, where in this second case cooler heads prevail and the bans are not left in place (barring the presentation of some significant evidence of on-wiki disruption).
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
I am puzzled on multiple fronts by this email. Was the Harvard law class not a randomly chosen class of law students, but a group of people who had
met
in order to make waterboarding sound legal in public discourse? Because otherwise I don't see the analogy. The only other people CM has 'banned' are people following Zeq's instructions and who give their accounts away in the "evidence", or were editing, clearly disruptively, from the CAMERA office. I'm sure the former, at least, could have their bans lifted if they repudiated the supposed methods and agreed to some form of mentorship.
On
the contrary, the attitude has been "yes, so what. Why can't you see, Wikipedia is biased, why aren't you worried about what the other lot are doing, we're just trying to fix it, are you on *their* side?" which is precisely the attitude we don't really have time for.
I wouldn't call that enormous subpage of AN/I "not much review", but whatever.
RR
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For what its worth, I have posted to AN/I, the subpage, and the newly filed arbitration request. My idea of a comprehensive review includes at least some examination of the edits of an editor prior to the implementation of a ban. Not everyone agrees. Sometimes efficient review is stifled by a low signal to noise ratio (cliched as that phrase has become these days). I think that has happened in this case, but hopefully the Committee if it chooses to accept the case can cut through the noise and make a determination.
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
I think you are ignoring the enormous difference in how they intended to influence content, which difference should be reflected in how they are handled.
And as for "comprehensive" review, I don't see what precisely you think needed to be added mentioned in your mail; I did mention the fairly good reasons for the topic-ban. If you feel that the level of review is problematic, you should feel free to respond there rather than here. Also, given that the information has been disseminated at AN/I and literally dozens of talkpages, I wouldn't feel overly concerned that it isn't receiving sufficient review. Reading and deciding its not worth posting to object are also forms of review - in fact, pretty much what WP is built on.
RR
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
My idea of a comprehensive review includes at least some examination of the edits of an editor prior to the implementation of a ban. Not everyone agrees. Sometimes efficient review is stifled by a low signal to noise ratio (cliched as that phrase has become these days). I think that has happened in this case, but hopefully the Committee if it chooses to accept the case can cut through the noise and make a determination.
Nathan
That would be a first. More likely silence for a fortnight followed by a reminder to follow our core policies and a general amnesty.
RR
2008/4/23 Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
My idea of a comprehensive review includes at least some examination of the edits of an editor prior to the implementation of a ban. Not everyone agrees. Sometimes efficient review is stifled by a low signal to noise ratio (cliched as that phrase has become these days). I think that has happened in this case, but hopefully the Committee if it chooses to accept the case can cut through the noise and make a determination.
That would be a first. More likely silence for a fortnight followed by a reminder to follow our core policies and a general amnesty.
If I were them I'd just advise them to ask people to pay a hell of a lot of attention to the pages of interest, with the finest of attention to NPOV writing whatever the participant's personal views. I really can't think of a better answer to problems like this.
And if they're such fans of Jayjg, maybe he can lead them into sensible NPOV contribution ;-)
(Jay, that's a job buzzing around and looking for you. "Your mission, should you fail to evade it ...")
- d.
I am puzzled on multiple fronts by this email. Was the Harvard law class not a randomly chosen class of law students, but a group of people who had met in order to make waterboarding sound legal in public discourse? Because otherwise I don't see the analogy. The only other people CM has 'banned' are people following Zeq's instructions and who give their accounts away in the "evidence", or were editing, clearly disruptively, from the CAMERA office. I'm sure the former, at least, could have their bans lifted if they repudiated the supposed methods and agreed to some form of mentorship. On the contrary, the attitude has been "yes, so what. Why can't you see, Wikipedia is biased, why aren't you worried about what the other lot are doing, we're just trying to fix it, are you on *their* side?" which is precisely the attitude we don't really have time for.
I wouldn't call that enormous subpage of AN/I "not much review", but whatever.
RR
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The whole rush to ban anyone associated with this group is disturbing, and not receiving much in the way of review. Christiano has so far blocked two editors and topic banned another one for a year, based on what in my mind is a non-review of their actual edits. This reminds me of the Harvard class involved in editing the Waterboarding article - some of the same people, in fact. We don't ban people for having a point of view. Having a point of view isn't a violation of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. We don't ban people for knowing eachother off wiki, or sharing a point of view that they discuss off-wiki. We don't ban people for being associated with strange people like Zeq, who claimed to marshal an "army" to go to "war" on Wikipedia in the e-mail that is attributed to him. Or we shouldn't, anyway, since now apparently we do ban people for these reasons. What makes this more problematic is that the folks being banned are ostensibly pro-Israel POV warriors - and the "evidence" against them consists of e-mails represented on electronicintifada.com, a very strongly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian activist organization. I put quotes around evidence because there barely is any evidence on that page except the efforts of junior amateur sleuths trying to connect editors to e-mail addresses.
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/04/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think the push by CAMERA is probably a reaction to the gradual
movement
of articles which relate to the Arab-Israeli toward neutral point of view. We just need to keep that up, not panic about organized efforts.
We
have alway had to deal with disorganized efforts.
I question the blogosphere "o noez the zionists are coming" response's sanity factor based on fingering Jayjg as an agent of CAMERA. Er, what.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:35 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/04/2008, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think the push by CAMERA is probably a reaction to the gradual
movement
of articles which relate to the Arab-Israeli toward neutral point of view. We just need to keep that up, not panic about organized efforts.
We
have alway had to deal with disorganized efforts.
I question the blogosphere "o noez the zionists are coming" response's sanity factor based on fingering Jayjg as an agent of CAMERA. Er, what.
- d.
If I were you, I'd question the ability to understand simple English of anyone who "fingers" Jayjg, given that the supposed emails specifically mention him - as someone from whom the existence of this effort should be concealed. It would be pretty absurd to have any of this impact Jay given that.
The only other place he is mentioned is when his methods of disputation are analysed as a guide for the Camera-army, with suggestions that they couldn't do better than to follow his lead or get out of the way.
RR
On 23/04/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
The only other place he is mentioned is when his methods of disputation are analysed as a guide for the Camera-army, with suggestions that they couldn't do better than to follow his lead or get out of the way.
Hah. See what I mean? They'll come here to POV push, then discover the most effective way to do that is to write good NPOV ;-)
- d.
No, it doesn't, but I really don't think they've faked anything.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:35:59 -0400 From: ritzman@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Israeli cabal tries a hostile takeover
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I don't think you'd quite say that if you read what this lot were planning.
http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia2.pdf
While it's likely that this is an accurate archive, it doesn't help that it's hosted by an "anti Israel" site.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Search and win with BigSnapSearch.com http://www.bigsnapsearch.com
On Apr 23, 2008, at 6:19 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Personally, I welcome lobby and activist groups to Wikipedia - (1) they quickly get NPOVed (2) we always recruit good new Wikipedians from them. This has happened over and over.
I believe the old phrase was "NPOV cures stupid."
-Phil