-----Original Message----- From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman@spamcop.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 03:14 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:04:04 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, when you said "Don't do it", I thought it referred to the last action you mentioned - "Linking to harassment sites". I suppose it would have been clearer if you said "Linking to harassment sites with the intent of harassing someone", but then the tautology would have become very obvious, wouldn't it?
No, "don't do it" in the sense of don't do it. Linking to harassment sites is forgivable the first time, because poeple might not know, but it rapidly becomes unacceptable if pressed, because even if *they* don't see it as harassing, *others* (specifically those harassed by the site) may well do. I can be perceived as harassment without being intended as such.
What I'm trying to say is, the proponents of a blanket ban on linking to attack sites, without regard for the intentions of those linking to said sites (and/or assuming that those who link to such a site must obviously be acting in bad faith) are not going to get very far, because as even you acknowledge, this sort of blanket ban is ridiculous.
In theory, yes. In practice I am still waiting for an example which is not obviously unacceptale. I am also pointing out that the fact of ED being the only site named in that ArbCom case absolutely does not mean it's the only site covered, per the prinicples I quoted above. Some people seem to think only ED is covered, I would say they are wrong.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
My position has evolved quite a bit during this discussion. Theoretical discussion about how a ban on links to attack sites is a bad idea, futile, counterproductive, etc. is fine. Not welcome, but fine.
What is not acceptable is a determined effort, in the face of warnings, to repeatedly link to an attack site. Whatever the excuse given.
We have a responsibility to protect our productive editors and administrators from harassment.
Fred
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:29:36 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
What is not acceptable is a determined effort, in the face of warnings, to repeatedly link to an attack site. Whatever the excuse given.
Yes, exactly that. Determined effort in the face of warnings (or even polite requests) is the behaviour problem. Simply linking in the first place is not in and of itself a behaviour problem, but it's a problem of a different kind which is best solved by removing the links and being polite but firm about it.
Or: "Don't be a dick. If people abided by this, we wouldn't need any other policies."
This is partly I think a problem of the demographic of Wikipedia. I find not so very many editors who are able to successfully picture themselves in others' shoes, and appreciate their perspective. This also applies to me in this case, as I am simply unable to appreciate why anyone would /want/ to link to Wikipedia Review, still less make a federal case of it.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
What is not acceptable is a determined effort, in the face of warnings, to repeatedly link to an attack site. Whatever the excuse given.
Yes, exactly that. Determined effort in the face of warnings (or even polite requests) is the behaviour problem. Simply linking in the first place is not in and of itself a behaviour problem
Determined effort to link in the face of warnings is only a behavior problem once it has been established that making the link is inappropriate and the warnings are necessary. But for the attack sites policy, this is the *very thing in dispute*.
In other words, linking in the face of warnings about policies may be trouble. Linking in the face of warnings about non-policies isn't.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Determined effort to link in the face of warnings is only a behavior problem once it has been established that making the link is inappropriate and the warnings are necessary. But for the attack sites policy, this is the *very thing in dispute*.
Please try to separate the two issues. No separate policy is needed in order to request people not to link to sites that habitually engage in harassment and outing. Existing policies already cover this, as was made plain in the MONGO arbitration. It's an unreliable source (hence invalid in the article) and a site rife with harassment (hence inappropriate in project space). The mature response to this being pointed out is "oh, right." Pressing the issue and escalating it is not likely to have any god result. No amount of Wikidrama will ever make that an acceptable source, after all.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Determined effort to link in the face of warnings is only a behavior problem once it has been established that making the link is inappropriate and the warnings are necessary. But for the attack sites policy, this is the *very thing in dispute*.
Please try to separate the two issues. No separate policy is needed in order to request people not to link to sites that habitually engage in harassment and outing. Existing policies already cover this, as was made plain in the MONGO arbitration. It's an unreliable source (hence invalid in the article) and a site rife with harassment (hence inappropriate in project space).
*Pages with attacks*, not *the entire site*.
The problem I have with the way the MONGO ruling is being enforced is that -- apparently -- a single admin can, on the basis of an attack on a single page, decide that the site including that page is "an attack site", and then that decision automatically means that *no page on that entire site* can ever be linked to from anywhere in enwiki.
I'm sorry, but it's absurd.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:51:25 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
*Pages with attacks*, not *the entire site*.
This site does not have pages, it has threads, every one of which is a ticking bomb because they can beb added to by any subscriber and the bar to subscription is apparently low; all you need is a grudge .
Guy (JzG)
On 13/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:51:25 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
*Pages with attacks*, not *the entire site*.
This site does not have pages, it has threads, every one of which is a ticking bomb because they can beb added to by any subscriber and the bar to subscription is apparently low; all you need is a grudge .
Maybe you should found Wikipedia Review Review.