Wikipedia is goingto be a safe and pleasant place for people to work. We will respect ourusers and do what we can to protect them from harassment.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs@eskimo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2007 06:54 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
jayjg wrote:
On 7/3/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm not talking about wiki-drama, I'm talking about hypertext. Wikipedia is a website. Websites link to each other. It turns out it's an incredibly powerful and useful concept.
It's only useful to link to sites that have useful content. Wikipedia has all sorts of rules about not linking to useless sites.
Wikipedia has rules about the insertion of useless *links*. And even if every link to a site is useless, we don't need an additional rule saying, never link to this site. The no-useless-links rule is both necessary and sufficient.
I wish you'd answer the question. Why do we need a blanket ban? How does it prevent Personal Attacks (in ways that WP:NPA can't)? How does it help us build an encyclopedia?
That has been explained at length.
(But this is still no explanation:)
Wikipedians volunteer their time to help in this project; as a result of that volunteer work, they are exposed to often vicious harassment by a small number of banned editors on websites. We should not in any way bring attention to those websites. It's common sense, good policy, and basic decency.
(I should really decline to take another turn on this merry-go-round, but:) Links to the vicious harassment, for the purpose of additional harassment, are vile and should be prohibited. But you still haven't shown why other kinds of links must be prohibited. You still haven't shown why a blanket ban is necessary.
The argument in favor of a blanket ban seems to rest on one or two assumptions:
- that a link to site X is an "endorsement" of site X, and/or
- that a viciously harassed volunteer Wikipedia editor,
once harassed, is further wounded by every mention of the harasser, in any context.
What cost? I've seen none so far.
An illogical, censorious policy exacts a significant (albeit intangible) cost in that observers are left with the impression that our policies are driven by emotion, not logic. One begins to trust and respect our policymaking process less.
I'm talking about real costs, not radical philosophy.
You'll have to define "real cost", then. The cost in terms of rational people throwing up their hands and walking away from a madhouse is at least as great as the cost in terms of thin-skinned victims wailing that the bully's name got mentioned again. It's not "radical philosophy" to point out that irrational, emotion-laden policies weaken a project that's supposed to welcome rational, mature contributors.
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 05/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Wikipedia is goingto be a safe and pleasant place for people to work. We will respect ourusers and do what we can to protect them from harassment.
Yes, we got that the first time...
On 7/4/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Wikipedia is goingto be a safe and pleasant place for people to work. We will respect ourusers and do what we can to protect them from harassment.
Yes, we got that the first time...
It bears repeating.
On 05/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/4/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Wikipedia is goingto be a safe and pleasant place for people to work. We will respect ourusers and do what we can to protect them from harassment.
Yes, we got that the first time...
It bears repeating.
Sadly, it doesn't justify the policy.
jayjg wrote:
On 7/4/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Wikipedia is goingto be a safe and pleasant place for people to work. We will respect ourusers and do what we can to protect them from harassment.
Yes, we got that the first time...
It bears repeating.
Please do repeat it jay. I agree with the sentiment. I don't know of anyone here who disagrees.
Where the disagreement lies is on the steps needed to make it a safe and pleasant place to work.
Banning all anonymous edits may well make it a safer and more pleasant place to work, but we do not take that step. No, I'm not using a strawman here; I'm just demonstrating that there are a range of possible actions to address the issue. Not all are good.
The point under discussion is whether a blanket ban of certain sites is a good step to take.
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:24:26 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
The point under discussion is whether a blanket ban of certain sites is a good step to take.
It seems to me that some people want to include links to WR on ideological grounds, and some people want to exclude them on ideological grounds.
Me, I take a more practical view. WR has no known editorial process, and is a festering den of banned vanity spammers and other malcontents. What they say about Wikipedia has no discernable authority, it is a textbook case of an unreliable source.
If Brandt, say, wants to say something about what he thinks of Wikipedia, and wants to say it on his own site under his name, that may be different, but pseudonymous rants by people we kicked off Wikipedia, generally for excellent reasons, do not strike me as useful to the project in any way. Especially since it's essentially a forum, so crap does not get corrected, it just gets commented on.
Guy (JzG)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Me, I take a more practical view. WR has no known editorial process, and is a festering den of banned vanity spammers and other malcontents. What they say about Wikipedia has no discernable authority, it is a textbook case of an unreliable source.
If WR links were only deleted for not being reliable sources, we wouldn't be *having* this fuss. Most of the questionable deletions of WR and similar links are under circumstances where reliable sources are irrelevant--talk pages, Wikipedia signpost, etc.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:27:44 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If WR links were only deleted for not being reliable sources, we wouldn't be *having* this fuss. Most of the questionable deletions of WR and similar links are under circumstances where reliable sources are irrelevant--talk pages, Wikipedia signpost, etc.
Why post a link to a site which engages in harassment and outing, if it's not even a reliable source? In what way is that not dickish?
Guy (JzG)
On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:27:44 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If WR links were only deleted for not being reliable sources, we wouldn't be *having* this fuss. Most of the questionable deletions of WR and
similar
links are under circumstances where reliable sources are irrelevant--talk pages, Wikipedia signpost, etc.
Why post a link to a site which engages in harassment and outing, if it's not even a reliable source? In what way is that not dickish?
Because different people have different interpretations of the phrase "reliable source". It is not dickery to disagree on what constitutes a reliable source; it is a content dispute. How the dispute is resolved, of course, may result in dickery from one or both sides.
Johnleemk
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:45:11 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Why post a link to a site which engages in harassment and outing, if it's not even a reliable source? In what way is that not dickish?
Because different people have different interpretations of the phrase "reliable source". It is not dickery to disagree on what constitutes a reliable source; it is a content dispute. How the dispute is resolved, of course, may result in dickery from one or both sides.
That debate has been had in respect of this site, some time ago. It is settled. WR is not a reliable source, the marginal utility it has in documenting some minor facets of self-referential issues is more than outweighed by the problems of harassment and outing. It may not have been dickery to start the discussion, but to perpetuate it this long certainly looks like it.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:45:11 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Why post a link to a site which engages in harassment and outing, if it's not even a reliable source? In what way is that not dickish?
Because different people have different interpretations of the phrase "reliable source". It is not dickery to disagree on what constitutes a reliable source; it is a content dispute. How the dispute is resolved, of course, may result in dickery from one or both sides.
That debate has been had in respect of this site, some time ago. It is settled. WR is not a reliable source, the marginal utility it has in documenting some minor facets of self-referential issues is more than outweighed by the problems of harassment and outing. It may not have been dickery to start the discussion, but to perpetuate it this long certainly looks like it.
Look, it's very obvious to all of us on the list that WR isn't a reliable source. What we're saying is that it isn't to others, and that threatening them with blocking isn't any greater an idea than threatening someone who cites Joe Bloggs' blog as a source with a block.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:45:11 +0800, "John Lee" wrote:
That debate has been had in respect of this site, some time ago. It
is settled. WR is not a reliable source, the marginal utility it has in documenting some minor facets of self-referential issues is more than outweighed by the problems of harassment and outing. It may not have been dickery to start the discussion, but to perpetuate it this long certainly looks like it.
Look, it's very obvious to all of us on the list that WR isn't a reliable source. What we're saying is that it isn't to others, and that threatening them with blocking isn't any greater an idea than threatening someone who cites Joe Bloggs' blog as a source with a block.
Yes. The debate isn't about the site; it's about taking a pragmatic approach in dealing with it.
Ec
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:01:21 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Look, it's very obvious to all of us on the list that WR isn't a reliable source. What we're saying is that it isn't to others, and that threatening them with blocking isn't any greater an idea than threatening someone who cites Joe Bloggs' blog as a source with a block.
Unless, of course, they continue to press the issue. If someone posts it and it's removed and we tell them why, fine. If they continue to re-insert it then a warning is entirely appropriate, just as a warning is appropriate if people keep inserting a blog as a source. We do this all the time.
Guy (JzG)
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, John Lee wrote:
If WR links were only deleted for not being reliable sources, we wouldn't be *having* this fuss. Most of the questionable deletions of WR and
similar
links are under circumstances where reliable sources are irrelevant--talk pages, Wikipedia signpost, etc.
Why post a link to a site which engages in harassment and outing, if it's not even a reliable source? In what way is that not dickish?
Because different people have different interpretations of the phrase "reliable source". It is not dickery to disagree on what constitutes a reliable source; it is a content dispute. How the dispute is resolved, of course, may result in dickery from one or both sides.
In this case, a better answer is "because reliable sources don't always matter". Non-reliable sources get linked in talk pages all the time. We don't delete them.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:19:39 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Non-reliable sources get linked in talk pages all the time. We don't delete them.
Unless they violate copyright, or privacy, or contain transparent bigotry, or any one of a dozen other good reasons. Talk pages exist to serve the encyclopaedia, after all.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/10/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Unless they violate copyright, or privacy, or contain transparent bigotry, or any one of a dozen other good reasons.
Granted, sometimes the line between "transparent bigotry" *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#External_links and "poignant satire" *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church#External_links is blurred *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#External_links
—C.W.
G'day Guy,
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:24:26 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
The point under discussion is whether a blanket ban of certain sites is a good step to take.
It seems to me that some people want to include links to WR on ideological grounds, and some people want to exclude them on ideological grounds.
Me, I take a more practical view. WR has no known editorial process, and is a festering den of banned vanity spammers and other malcontents. What they say about Wikipedia has no discernable authority, it is a textbook case of an unreliable source.
We shouldn't ban WR simply because we can't think of a good reason not to. That's not how things work on Wikipedia or, indeed, in most of the free world. "Everything that is not expressly condoned is forbidden"?
Okay, so you can't think of a time when it would be a reliable source. Neither can I. That ain't a reason to blanket ban links to it.
If Brandt, say, wants to say something about what he thinks of Wikipedia, and wants to say it on his own site under his name, that may be different, but pseudonymous rants by people we kicked off Wikipedia, generally for excellent reasons, do not strike me as useful to the project in any way. Especially since it's essentially a forum, so crap does not get corrected, it just gets commented on.
WR isn't "essentially" a forum. It *is* a forum. Forum software, eh?
We must be alert to the possibility that we kicked people off Wikipedia incorrectly. We must be alert to the possibility that people we kicked off correctly still have something to contribute[0].
Wikipedia Review is a site where people who don't like Wikipedia come to bitch. Generally the bitching isn't worth reading. In my experience[2] the value of WR exists only in theory. Nonetheless, it's a bloody powerful theory.
Wikipedia Review, or a place like it (preferably much better), *should* exist. The psychos need it to exist, sure, but so do the rest of us. It's perfectly natural and human and understandable and even laudable to peek in at the knee-wobbling vitriol evident there and say, "Nuh-uh, we aren't exposing our colleagues to *this* place!" It's also the Wrong Thing. I hope experienced Wikipedians haven't started advocating doing the Wrong Thing with the best of intentions.
[0] It may not be worthwhile having them edit directly[1], but that doesn't mean we should ignore them entirely.
[1] Hence "kicked off correctly".
[2] Which is broad enough to have seen numerous examples of disgusting behaviour, but insufficiently broad to have seen the glimmer of beauty possessed by every WR poster as the beaver away for the betterment of mankind[3]. This is clearly evidence that I don't read it enough.
[3] Perhaps there should be a t-shirt: "I may appear to be a twisted emotional cripple eaten up by hate, but in the dark depths of my psyche, flowers grow." It could be black, but with a brilliant, glow-in-the-dark flower of indescribable beauty. I'd wear one.
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:03:13 +1000, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We shouldn't ban WR simply because we can't think of a good reason not to. That's not how things work on Wikipedia or, indeed, in most of the free world. "Everything that is not expressly condoned is forbidden"? Okay, so you can't think of a time when it would be a reliable source. Neither can I. That ain't a reason to blanket ban links to it.
No it isn't. But the fact that it is full of attacks, privacy violations, harassment and stalking *is* a good reason.
However, in the end, I'm afraid I think the major reason for people being so very keen to include links to WR is that they despise Essjay and want to put the boot in as hard as possible. An unworthy thought, but it fits much of what I've observed on the article's talk page.
We must be alert to the possibility that we kicked people off Wikipedia incorrectly. We must be alert to the possibility that people we kicked off correctly still have something to contribute[0].
This debate is going on at Wikiabuse right now. Jonathan Barber, banned vanity spammer JB196, is coming through my block logs and posting a lot as "unsubstantiated blocks." Before I lost patience I was spending 15-20 minutes reviewing each one to remind myself of the reason for the blocks. In almost every case it was blatant attacks on living individuals, spamming, POV-pushing or some other plainly good reason. I was happy to go back and review them during the Badlydrawnjeff arbtration, and content to do so again for a while. Not a problem. What is a problem is people insisting that a block is bad simply because they can't see the deleted contributions that supported it, or even because they can't be bothered to look. Which is an aside.
The point is, I have nothing against thoughtful criticism. But WR does not provide this. It does not provide rational discourse and thoughtful challenges, it provides grandstanding by people who were in the main entirely rightly banned, and it provides attacks and privacy violations as well.
It provides Jonathan Barber screaming that Wikipedia admins are abusive because one or two of his four hundred or so proven and suspected sockpuppet vandals /weren't him/ - which may be true, but if he was not a prolific ban-evading vandal, the problem would not exist in the first place. Wikiabuse has the potential to be better, because the crap may get edited out. Signs are bad right now.
Actually, of course, one of the leading sources of thoughtful critique is this mailing list, where numerous banned editors have been known to contribute.
Guy (JzG)
Fred Bauder wrote:
Wikipedia is goingto be a safe and pleasant place for people to work. We will respect ourusers and do what we can to protect them from harassment.
If banning a site would stop its harrassment, I'd be all for it. If banning Voldemort's name would make him go away, Dumbledore would be all for it. If repeating any argument three times made it true, a lot of people would be all for it. :-)