-----Original Message----- From: Kamryn Matika [mailto:kamrynmatika@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2007 11:13 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
On 7/5/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
On 5 Jul 2007 at 03:42:01 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info
wrote:
Part of the ban is posturing
So it's kind of like the "security theatre" we have to endure every time
we travel by air... lots of
silly rules, enforced in an arbitrary, draconian way, with all sorts of
inconvenience to innocent
people, which probably doesn't do much or anything at all to prevent
actual terrorism, but
which show everybody that the authorities are Doing Something.
So it is very much a matter of saying and meaning:
We will make every effort to support our contributors and to defeat
attempts to harass them.
...and we don't care how many contributors we need to harrass in order
to accomplish this!
KamrynMatika seems possibly to have been run off in this way now.. at
least, she's blanked
out her user and talk pages and hasn't made any appearance in a couple
of days, after
getting into conflict with the "draconian-link-ban" people.
Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Dan, please don't take this the wrong way, but KamrynMatika's 245 mainspace edits are rather negligible compared to the tens of thousands of edits the most attacked Wikipedians have contributed. If protecting several of our more prolific editors from attacks means that some fairly new users get disgruntled (which I do not quite understand in the first place), then, well, that's an acceptable price to pay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thanks.
If you chose to be roadkill, so be it. I consider it a minor matter. That so much ink was wasted on the issue has little or nothing to do with you. Just keep on editing and enjoy contributing.
We must not only support our productive contributors and administrators, our workers, we must also make it plain that doing so is a priority. Protecting the "right" to link to critical posts on external websites, is pretty low on the list of priorities. However, let''s assume you are a good editor and you can assume we are trying our best and had nothing against you personally and go from there.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
If you chose to be roadkill, so be it. I consider it a minor matter. That so much ink was wasted on the issue has little or nothing to do with you. Just keep on editing and enjoy contributing.
We must not only support our productive contributors and administrators, our workers, we must also make it plain that doing so is a priority. Protecting the "right" to link to critical posts on external websites, is pretty low on the list of priorities. However, let''s assume you are a good editor and you can assume we are trying our best and had nothing against you personally and go from there.
It IS a minor matter, but for the fact that a small gang of obsessives wants to flex its muscles by insisting on its right to impose discipline on anyone who links to a site they don't like, and then support their actions with the utterly spurious excuse that it somehow protects people. If you want these users to assume that you are trying your best, you must also assume that they are trying their best, and be willing to treat them as equals. If you choose to block someone solely for linking to such sites it's you, not them, that is making it a personal issue, smarmy consolings notwithstanding.
You must know by now that very few of us will even think of linkig to such sites, not even those of us who see such hard-line attitudes as a form of bullying. Had you chosen a more pragmatic approach, the arguments would have ceased long ago. People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community. Those who make such links out of bad faith are unlikely to confine thier activity to only one single act of bad faith.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
If you chose to be roadkill, so be it. I consider it a minor matter. That so much ink was wasted on the issue has little or nothing to do with you. Just keep on editing and enjoy contributing.
We must not only support our productive contributors and administrators, our workers, we must also make it plain that doing so is a priority. Protecting the "right" to link to critical posts on external websites, is pretty low on the list of priorities. However, let''s assume you are a good editor and you can assume we are trying our best and had nothing against you personally and go from there.
It IS a minor matter, but for the fact that a small gang of obsessives wants to flex its muscles by insisting on its right to impose discipline on anyone who links to a site they don't like, and then support their actions with the utterly spurious excuse that it somehow protects people. If you want these users to assume that you are trying your best, you must also assume that they are trying their best, and be willing to treat them as equals. If you choose to block someone solely for linking to such sites it's you, not them, that is making it a personal issue, smarmy consolings notwithstanding.
You must know by now that very few of us will even think of linkig to such sites, not even those of us who see such hard-line attitudes as a form of bullying. Had you chosen a more pragmatic approach, the arguments would have ceased long ago. People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community. Those who make such links out of bad faith are unlikely to confine thier activity to only one single act of bad faith.
Ec
Very well stated!
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:50:24 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community.
So you say. I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate reason for linking to WR.
Guy (JzG)
On 08/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:50:24 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community.
So you say. I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate reason for linking to WR.
"there hasn't been one yet" != "there will never be one".
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:56:12 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community.
So you say. I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate reason for linking to WR.
"there hasn't been one yet" != "there will never be one".
And? This seems to be a very lengthy argument about nothing, if that's the limit of it.
Actually, though, what has happened is that people have inserted links to a source which conspicuously fails any rational definition of reliability, and these links have been, quite rightly, removed. Wikilawyering over precisely /why/ is pretty silly. Sure, the wrong reason may have been cited, but it doesn't take much thought to realise that this is a crap source and linking to it is inappropriate on a number of levels.
Wikilawyering over how we /must/ be able to link to this particular site because it's not mentioned by name in an ArbCom ruling, although that ruling contains three principles which unquestionably indicate that it should not be linked, is even sillier. We don't need a policy to say "don't link to sites that attack and try to out Wikipedia editors". It's covered by "don't be a dick". Nor do we need a specific finding that such-and-such a site that attacks and attempts to out Wikipedians is covered by a ruling on sites that attack and attempt to "out" Wikipedians, even if that ruling was delivered in response to a different site. The fact that we should not link to sites which make a habit of attacking and trying to "out" people who would rather remain anonymous should hardly need to be stated, it is so blindingly obvious.
Compare and contrast the hysteria occasioned by revealing the mere fact of an editor using Tor, with the equal hysteria generated by those who would like to be able (should there ever turn out to be a decent reason, none such having yet been advanced) to link to a site which comprehensively destroys the anonymity of some people against whom, as it happens, some particularly vicious trolls harbour a grudge.
I consider this perverse.
Guy (JzG)
To start with, I thank you for the admission that the ArbCom decision did not itself specifically justify the removal of the references or the banning of this particular site.
The real argument for refusing to link to a particular site can only be that none of its material can possibly be objective, since they make a habit of inserting unsourced and unjustifiable material. But that discards the good as well as the bad--the number given above was 10% good. Do you think that WP editors are unable to tell the good from the bad? Honest reporting includes all pertinent documentation. As the arb com ruling does not permit this, it is wrong as being a rejection of the fundamental principle of using verifiable information--all verifiable information.
This does not mean I intend to violate it, or suggest that anyone should. There are other present rules I do not think wise, but I follow them, while hoping that ways will be found to change them.
On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:56:12 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community.
So you say. I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate reason for linking to WR.
"there hasn't been one yet" != "there will never be one".
And? This seems to be a very lengthy argument about nothing, if that's the limit of it.
Actually, though, what has happened is that people have inserted links to a source which conspicuously fails any rational definition of reliability, and these links have been, quite rightly, removed. Wikilawyering over precisely /why/ is pretty silly. Sure, the wrong reason may have been cited, but it doesn't take much thought to realise that this is a crap source and linking to it is inappropriate on a number of levels.
Wikilawyering over how we /must/ be able to link to this particular site because it's not mentioned by name in an ArbCom ruling, although that ruling contains three principles which unquestionably indicate that it should not be linked, is even sillier. We don't need a policy to say "don't link to sites that attack and try to out Wikipedia editors". It's covered by "don't be a dick". Nor do we need a specific finding that such-and-such a site that attacks and attempts to out Wikipedians is covered by a ruling on sites that attack and attempt to "out" Wikipedians, even if that ruling was delivered in response to a different site. The fact that we should not link to sites which make a habit of attacking and trying to "out" people who would rather remain anonymous should hardly need to be stated, it is so blindingly obvious.
Compare and contrast the hysteria occasioned by revealing the mere fact of an editor using Tor, with the equal hysteria generated by those who would like to be able (should there ever turn out to be a decent reason, none such having yet been advanced) to link to a site which comprehensively destroys the anonymity of some people against whom, as it happens, some particularly vicious trolls harbour a grudge.
I consider this perverse.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
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 Sun, 8 Jul 2007 13:25:14 -0400, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
To start with, I thank you for the admission that the ArbCom decision did not itself specifically justify the removal of the references or the banning of this particular site.
Interesting that you perceive it as such. From the ArbCom findings:
Links to attack site 3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.
Support of harassment 7) Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks.
Outing sites as attack sites 11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.
Since WR is an outing site, per principle 11, linking it is an attack, per principle 3, and those doing so are responsible for their actions, per principle 7. That's the strictly legalistic view.
But actually there is a *much* better reason for not linking it, which is that it is simply not an acceptable source. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
The real argument for refusing to link to a particular site can only be that none of its material can possibly be objective, since they make a habit of inserting unsourced and unjustifiable material. But that discards the good as well as the bad--the number given above was 10% good. Do you think that WP editors are unable to tell the good from the bad? Honest reporting includes all pertinent documentation. As the arb com ruling does not permit this, it is wrong as being a rejection of the fundamental principle of using verifiable information--all verifiable information.
No, the reason can be that it engages in harassment and outing, and is therefore dangerous to know. Honest reporting? Don't give me that. WR would not know honest reporting if it bit them on the arse. It exists solely to throw rocks at us, and easily nine out of ten of the rocks miss completely. So they had one direct hit? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, you still would not recommend it to anyone who wanted to know the time.
This does not mean I intend to violate it, or suggest that anyone should. There are other present rules I do not think wise, but I follow them, while hoping that ways will be found to change them.
Not linking to attack and outing sites is one rule that will probably never change, because it stems from a much more fundamental and long-standing rule: don't be a dick.
Guy (JzG)
But you can't stop people from knowing; I would never have paid the least attention for it until I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
No, the reason can be that it engages in harassment and outing, and is therefore dangerous to know.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:38:51 -0400, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
No, the reason can be that it engages in harassment and outing, and is therefore dangerous to know.
But you can't stop people from knowing; I would never have paid the least attention for it until I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
Ever heard the old saying "don't shit on your own doorstep"? That's the point. Let them whine to their hearts' content, but we are under no obligation to assist them and anyone who stirs up drama by insisting on doing so is not really helping.
Guy (JzG)
G'day Guy,
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:38:51 -0400, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
But you can't stop people from knowing; I would never have paid the least attention for it until I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
Ever heard the old saying "don't shit on your own doorstep"? That's the point. Let them whine to their hearts' content, but we are under no obligation to assist them and anyone who stirs up drama by insisting on doing so is not really helping.
There is a gap --- a big gap --- between not wanting to assist WR and its inbred cousins, and outright flat-banning links to it under any circumstances. If you were of an over-dramatic bent --- and I know we both are --- you might say it was the distance between freedom and comfort.
If someone links to WR with the obvious intent of trying to harass, offend, insult, other Wikipedians, then we're well-equipped to deal with that.
If someone removes links to WR --- or any other site dubbed an "attack site", including that well-known haven of trolls, Making Light --- because they're too fucking stupid to recognise the subtlety of the situation even if you hit them over the head with a sledgehammer with the word "subtle" engraved on its face, then we should be well-equipped to deal with that, too.
Hint: it wouldn't be by buying them chocolates and saying, "Well done, cobber. Now if only those trolls didn't keep disagreeing with you."
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:56:12 +0100, "James Farrar" wrote:
People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community.
So you say. I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate reason for linking to WR.
"there hasn't been one yet" != "there will never be one".
And? This seems to be a very lengthy argument about nothing, if that's the limit of it.
Actually, though, what has happened is that people have inserted links to a source which conspicuously fails any rational definition of reliability, and these links have been, quite rightly, removed. Wikilawyering over precisely /why/ is pretty silly. Sure, the wrong reason may have been cited, but it doesn't take much thought to realise that this is a crap source and linking to it is inappropriate on a number of levels.
Not every thoughtful person arrives at the same view as you.
Wikilawyering over how we /must/ be able to link to this particular site because it's not mentioned by name in an ArbCom ruling, although that ruling contains three principles which unquestionably indicate that it should not be linked, is even sillier.
Is Wikilayering over how we /must not/ be able to link any better. When you cite three policy statements to support your position, that too can be seen as wikilawyering.
We don't need a policy to say "don't link to sites that attack and try to out Wikipedia editors". It's covered by "don't be a dick". Nor do we need a specific finding that such-and-such a site that attacks and attempts to out Wikipedians is covered by a ruling on sites that attack and attempt to "out" Wikipedians, even if that ruling was delivered in response to a different site.
If Arbcom starts to enforce rules that aren't there it's usurping the role of the public to making rules. Holding firm on that position can only cast the Arbcom into disrepute.
The fact that we should not link to sites which make a habit of attacking and trying to "out" people who would rather remain anonymous should hardly need to be stated, it is so blindingly obvious.
There's that weasel word, "obvious" again. It's a rhetorical technique to win by dininishing the intelligence of your opponents.
Compare and contrast the hysteria occasioned by revealing the mere fact of an editor using Tor, with the equal hysteria generated by those who would like to be able (should there ever turn out to be a decent reason, none such having yet been advanced) to link to a site which comprehensively destroys the anonymity of some people against whom, as it happens, some particularly vicious trolls harbour a grudge.
That sounds very dramatic. The obstinacy of those supporting likely does more to promote these sites than any quietly placed links.
Ec
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:38:51 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Not every thoughtful person arrives at the same view as you.
Not so: the very definition of a thoughtful person is one who agrees with me. This is true for all values of me.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:50:24 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community.
So you say. I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate reason for linking to WR.
The absolute banning of such links should not depend on somebody's failure of imagination.
Ec
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:26:06 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The absolute banning of such links should not depend on somebody's failure of imagination.
There is no absolute ban, and the removal does not depend on anyone's imagination, it depends on the excellent principles noted in the MONGO arbitration, to wit: don't link to sites which habitually attack, harass and violate privacy. If WR had static content rather than threads which are inherently vulnerable to hijacking, links may well be justifiable, with mature discussion, but we don't send people into the sewer without first checking that the foul drain is sealed off.
Guy (JzG)
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
The absolute banning of such links should not depend on somebody's failure of imagination.
There is no absolute ban, and the removal does not depend on anyone's imagination, it depends on the excellent principles noted in the MONGO arbitration, to wit: don't link to sites which habitually attack, harass and violate privacy.
This is obviously some strange definition of the phrase "no absolute" of which I was not previously aware.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:32:40 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
There is no absolute ban, and the removal does not depend on anyone's imagination, it depends on the excellent principles noted in the MONGO arbitration, to wit: don't link to sites which habitually attack, harass and violate privacy.
This is obviously some strange definition of the phrase "no absolute" of which I was not previously aware.
The distinction is a subtle one, I agree. If WR had static pages with an editorial process in addition to the forum, then a debate might well be appropriate in respect of one of those pages. As presently constituted, no chance. They could change policy, change moderation policy, lock old threads and purge them of crap, produce static editorial summaries or some other thing I have not thought of and we would then be in a position to discuss the merits of individual links, but as long as it is a forum and largely dominated by grudge-bearers then no amount of debate is likely to change the outcome, and perpetuating the demand for links risks crossing the line into troll country.
Guy (JzG)
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
There is no absolute ban, and the removal does not depend on anyone's imagination, it depends on the excellent principles noted in the MONGO arbitration, to wit: don't link to sites which habitually attack, harass and violate privacy.
This is obviously some strange definition of the phrase "no absolute" of which I was not previously aware.
The distinction is a subtle one, I agree. If WR had static pages with an editorial process in addition to the forum, then a debate might well be appropriate in respect of one of those pages. As presently constituted, no chance. They could change policy, change moderation policy, lock old threads and purge them of crap, produce static editorial summaries or some other thing I have not thought of and we would then be in a position to discuss the merits of individual links, but as long as it is a forum and largely dominated by grudge-bearers then no amount of debate is likely to change the outcome, and perpetuating the demand for links risks crossing the line into troll country.
If someone uses a link, your policy means that they cannot argue that the link is a valid one; all such links are banned regardless of their content.
No matter how you spin the phrase "no absolutes", saying that a link may not be inserted under any circumstances regardless of any arguments made about that specific link, is an absolute. Claiming it is not insults everyone's intelligence.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:56:59 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If someone uses a link, your policy means that they cannot argue that the link is a valid one; all such links are banned regardless of their content
Only those which have a known risk. WR are at liberty to lock old threads, set up static pages or any one of a number of alternatives. Their discussion threads, though, are a nightmare. As long as discussion treads is all they have, no link is appropriate, but that is about the format not the url.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:26:06 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The absolute banning of such links should not depend on somebody's failure of imagination.
There is no absolute ban,
No, just effects indistinguishable from one.
This is why the people who seem to be following WP:BADSITES seem particularly ludicrous when claiming that it was written by a troll - they're following just what it said in the version they claim to be repudiating!
- d.
On 12/07/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:26:06 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The absolute banning of such links should not depend on somebody's failure of imagination.
There is no absolute ban,
No, just effects indistinguishable from one. This is why the people who seem to be following WP:BADSITES seem particularly ludicrous when claiming that it was written by a troll - they're following just what it said in the version they claim to be repudiating!
And note, by the way, that this is how they trashed Gracenotes' RFA - he answered saying he went for a non-absolute link by link approach, and they then trashed the RFA for not following the absolute approach they claim to be repudiating. We've seen nothing whatsoever to reassure us they won't do the same to Gracenotes or some other editor next time - trashing an RFA for not agreeing with a *failed* policy initiative.
- d.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:11:36 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is why the people who seem to be following WP:BADSITES seem particularly ludicrous when claiming that it was written by a troll - they're following just what it said in the version they claim to be repudiating!
Silly of them. Existing policy is perfectly adequate.
Guy (JzG)
G'day Guy,
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:50:24 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community.
So you say. I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate reason for linking to WR.
You keep saying that phrase. I do not think it has the significance you think it has.
I'd wager that there are a great many websites on this wide brown land we call "the Internet" that Guy Chapman can't think of a good reason to link to. It wouldn't surprise me if there were millions of the buggers. Why don't we flat-out ban links to them?
Because we *don't* ban links to websites because we can't think of a legitimate reason to link to them. We *just don't do it*. We need a stronger argument than, "I can't think why you would want to link there in good faith."
You've claimed in the past to *have* such arguments. Personally, they don't strike me as particularly strong either, but they're better than the outright furphy you state above.
Wikipedians do not need your approval before linking to any website on the Internet. No, sir, we do not. Please desist from this argument, because, frankly, it makes you look an ass.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:43:46 +1000, Mark Gallagher fuddlemark@gmail.com wrote:
I'd wager that there are a great many websites on this wide brown land we call "the Internet" that Guy Chapman can't think of a good reason to link to.
So would I - because I haven't heard of them However, I *have* heard of WR, and I *have* read quite a bit of it and I *have* seen the links being proposed, so in this case the fact that I can't think of a legitimate reason may well be more significant than you are giving credit for.
Guy (JzG)