-----Original Message----- From: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk@gmail.com]
Indeed - rather, I meant that as a humorous example. Now it appears we cannot even discuss these sites on-wiki - or at the very least, can't hyperlink URLs to them. And, of course, eventually there will be a notable site devoted to attacking Wikipedians, at which point, we will have to re-examine this policy.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________
Please don't republish personal attacks on other users.
Fred
On 10/17/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk@gmail.com]
Indeed - rather, I meant that as a humorous example. Now it appears we cannot even discuss these sites on-wiki - or at the very least, can't hyperlink URLs to them. And, of course, eventually there will be a notable site devoted to attacking Wikipedians, at which point, we will have to re-examine this policy.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________
Please don't republish personal attacks on other users.
Hyperlinking a personal attack is tantamount to a personal attack now? I guess we should lock up everyone who gathers evidence of personal attacks for evidence pages, since they've been linking to these by the shitload.
Johnleemk
On 10/17/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Hyperlinking a personal attack is tantamount to a personal attack now? I guess we should lock up everyone who gathers evidence of personal attacks for evidence pages, since they've been linking to these by the shitload.
Johnleemk
I know Halloween is right around the corner, but we really don't need any straw men is this discussion. Let's stick to discussion of links to external sites that harass, expose and intimidate editors.
(Although you might be interested to know that the user page policy does now prohibt "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." In other words, evidence is ok as long as you actually intend to file a case, but nursing grudges is verboten, because it can indeed constitute harassment of other editors.)
Thatcher
On 17/10/2007, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Hyperlinking a personal attack is tantamount to a personal attack now? I guess we should lock up everyone who gathers evidence of personal attacks for evidence pages, since they've been linking to these by the shitload.
I know Halloween is right around the corner, but we really don't need any straw men is this discussion. Let's stick to discussion of links to external sites that harass, expose and intimidate editors.
The reality of this situation is that many "straw man" notions have in fact come true. There appears to be no limit to the reach of the undead BADSITES notion.
(Although you might be interested to know that the user page policy does now prohibt "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." In other words, evidence is ok as long as you actually intend to file a case, but nursing grudges is verboten, because it can indeed constitute harassment of other editors.)
See, that's something like sensible.
- d.
On 10/17/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Hyperlinking a personal attack is tantamount to a personal attack now? I guess we should lock up everyone who gathers evidence of personal
attacks
for evidence pages, since they've been linking to these by the shitload.
Johnleemk
I know Halloween is right around the corner, but we really don't need any straw men is this discussion. Let's stick to discussion of links to external sites that harass, expose and intimidate editors.
But if we avoid self-references and try to maintain a neutral point of view, it really shouldn't matter whether a link is external or internal; a personal attack is a personal attack. If we ignore the context and purpose of a hyperlink for external links, why do we give leeway for internal links?
(Although you might be interested to know that the user page policy
does now prohibt "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." In other words, evidence is ok as long as you actually intend to file a case, but nursing grudges is verboten, because it can indeed constitute harassment of other editors.)
Nursing grudges obviously ought to be verboten. The problem is that several statements on policy at the moment treat *all* sorts of hyperlinks, regardless of context or purpose, as having exactly the same verboten context and purpose. Fred's insistence that hyperlinking a personal attack, regardless of purpose or context, constitutes republishing that attack is a perfect example of this.
Johnleemk
Quoting John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com:
On 10/17/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Hyperlinking a personal attack is tantamount to a personal attack now? I guess we should lock up everyone who gathers evidence of personal
attacks
for evidence pages, since they've been linking to these by the shitload.
Johnleemk
I know Halloween is right around the corner, but we really don't need any straw men is this discussion. Let's stick to discussion of links to external sites that harass, expose and intimidate editors.
But if we avoid self-references and try to maintain a neutral point of view, it really shouldn't matter whether a link is external or internal; a personal attack is a personal attack. If we ignore the context and purpose of a hyperlink for external links, why do we give leeway for internal links?
Pet peeve: Avoiding self-reference is a style guide, not a content guide. That's why we can have articles like [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Wikipedia]]. Heck, I think we're getting to the point where we could legitimately write a well-sourced article about Wikipedia Policy. And there'd be nothing wrong with that aside from the minor detail that there are more important articles to write first.
On 18/10/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Pet peeve: Avoiding self-reference is a style guide, not a content guide. That's why we can have articles like [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Wikipedia]]. Heck, I think we're getting to the point where we could legitimately write a well-sourced article about Wikipedia Policy. And there'd be nothing wrong with that aside from the minor detail that there are more important articles to write first.
Indeed. "Avoid self reference" is simply saying "treat us, in the third person, as you would anyone else, and maintain proportion".
In the Good Old Days (TM), this meant "don't mention Wikipedia", because we were some fringe trivial organisation. Now, however, the relative significance has shifted somewhat... and mentioning Wikipedia in articles in an appropriate manner is okay.
(Admittedly, with many of our editors, it's easier to say "don't do it" than "do it well"...)
John Lee wrote:
On 10/17/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Please don't republish personal attacks on other users.
[...] I guess we should lock up everyone who gathers evidence of personal attacks for evidence pages, since they've been linking to these by the shitload.
And this is a fine example of how I think the delete-all-links and do-not-speak-of approaches are at best self-defeating. And at worst eternal sources of arguments like this one.
One of our unifying characteristics is a big dose of "show me". Surprising claim? Show me the source. Hypothetical problem? Show me the actual problem. Someone's misbehaving? Show me where. It's a bedrock piece of our culture, and it's absolutely vital.
Those approaches systematically remove the community's ability to verify a problem. That means a continuous rolling argument about whether there indeed is a problem at all, and if so, how severe it is. Forever.
William