[We each respond in our own time cycles - I don't read the list by the hour, more by the day or week. If you've had enough thoughts on this, please scroll on! Otherwise ... this is more about Wikipedia banning, not this list, and I try to remove any personal references. Here are my thoughts ... 1,388 words:]
--
Earlier: "... As is it if you know how [so-and-so] acts on IRC ...
Many ops suspect that [they] did a few of the bot attacks on #wikipedia. (Maybe just suspicion, but nevertheless, it's suspicious.) ..."
Great - ban someone on Wikipedia because of their (suspected) actions OFF Wikipedia!
And the logic is ...?
We're building an incentive for admins to spend their time looking for people to ban, and look even harder by looking OFF Wikipedia to invent reasons to ban them.
We are incentivizing building a Wikipedia Secret Police!
We should be incentivizing building a Wikipedia community, building an encyclopedia!
Does anyone have any ideas how to incorporate ALL our members into the Wikipedia community?
Earlier: "... Isn't this list moderated? ..."
Hahahahah. I get it.
But, seriously, if we ask others to ignore us if they're not interested in our posts, then we must agree to also scroll on past other people's posts that do not interest us, rather than ask a moderator to guess what we object to, and do our editing/censoring for us, as if that were a service, as if anyone needs that as a job description: Mind Reader. What a useless waste of time and energy for a moderator to read these posts for content, then delete anything that's not spam. Let it all through - I'll do my own scrolling down and deleting, thank you very much!
Earlier: "... If ... the mailing list becomes disagreeable to the
majority of its active users ... to the point that they leave and go elsewhere, what has been gained? ..."
What's been gained?
People taking responsibility for themselves!
... rather than abdicating their responsibilities to a moderator to second-guess for them and make life supposedly easier for them - read: sterilized!
Banning and deleting are not the only ways to "moderate" a list, or Wikipedia. Why not dive in, moderate, set an example, and inspire BOTH sides to play well together more effectively?
Earlier: "... it's the blatantly repetitive/redundant/non-contributing
stuff that we reject ..."
Hey, cut that out! I mean, DON'T cut that out! I mean ... let it all through! It may be redundant to you, but everything's new to newbies ... and I'm at that point in life where everything old is new again, with every new dawning day. Sometimes I blink or sneeze and everything's new for me once again after that! =8^o Life is good! (Versus?)
Let me simplify our lives as a moderators, admins, and sysops:
-- delete spam only --
... uhmm, that's it!
We can take it from there! Anyone who complains that the list is too noisy should start another list under their own name and call it "Josie's Clean Wikipedia Chat" or whatever, and do their own moderation to their own heart's content.
Otherwise, if there's a "Wikipedia" on the name, keep it open for everyone, all the time, always.
Earlier: "... [they] had two accounts ... [they] used one to recommend
the other be unblocked without making it clear you controlled both. That's abusive use of sockpuppets, and the blocks are valid ..."
Oh, puleeze!
Let's assess the contents of any writing on it's merits alone, ignore the source, don't prejudice ourselves against actually thinking and being empathetic with our fellow community members, with what we would do if we were in the situation. "I wouldn't let it happen to me." Oh yeah? By allowing others to ban AT ALL, we risk letting it happen to ourselves! It could happen. Let's not be so fast to say, "Banned, eh, what'd YOU do to get banned?"
Let's not create the need for everyone on Wikipedia to have at least three accounts, so if one of them gets banned, we can use the second to ask for relief, and then use the third to contribute unrelated to whatever admin/sysop got their head full of kaka over the first two. I like to edit under my own name because it's easy, and I don't mind people knowing about me and contacting me - I've really been just me since before the web was the web, since I was on dialup modem bulletin boards, and then on CompuServe, and so on, to today! Same me. Same non-spamming, non-vandalizing me for 30 years. "Why should I suddenly only exist anonymously?" -- Zen Cohan
As it is now, with even recommendations from list members here to log-in under additional pseudonyms to avoid confrontations, why not just make everyone in Wikipedia anonymous all the time, have no accounts at all, and open up the proxies, and then judge any writing on the merits of the content itself, and ignore the reputed source altogether? I'm serious!
How disingenuous do we want our relationships to be? What are the unintended consequences of our Wikipedia policies and actions? I always think of the incentives hidden in what are otherwise, on first blush, seemingly wise policies. After all, we want someone to clean up the junk, don't we? So, of course we want them to be able to ban ... don't we? Then we get banned, and it ain't so pretty!
The point is to build a great Wikipedia, and that requires a great community. So, let's get to it. Let's set an example. Let's stop sniping at each other, even at those of us who are sniping at each other. Okay?
Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm even maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who banned me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
Earlier: "... Dialogue is crucial; I personally would like to engage
those who fear they will be moderated, because I cannot think of a reason they would fear that ..."
Here's a reason: at least because people get banned from one place for their actions elsewhere! So, if Wikipedia had a no-banning policy, all this noise and destructiveness would come to a grinding halt, and ALL venues would open up to be more effective vehicles for community integration! Really. It works. Freedom, though messy, is contagious, and is way easier and more inclusive in the long run than the alternative.
Earlier: "... What disturbs me ... is the responses of some users who
are just too quick to find fault, or who have so glued themselves to literal [interpretations of] rules [such] that they are unable to seek any kind of alternate resolution. One person who apparently imposed the block seems more intent on justifying [their] own actions than attempting any kind of reconciliation ..."
Tah-dah! The power to ban itself is the problem. "We have met the enemy, and it's us." -- Pogo, Walt Kelly, a Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
Earlier: "... engaged in behavior that should result in [their]
moderation? What exactly is that behavior? ..."
What behavior warrants moderation? Let's keep it simple: spam and vandals only.
Otherwise, let the readers do their own editing, deleting, and scrolling-on.
Simple, no?
Earlier: "... few lists have mods as lenient as this list does ..."
But, I want STRICT moderators, admins, and sysops. That is, with very few, simple tools. And BANNING is not among them! Strictly dialoging, strictly moderating, and strictly participating in community building. Stick to that strictly, please!
Let's start thinking of our own time on Wikipedia as an investment, rather then thinking of other people's time as if it were an expense!
-- Peter Blaise
----------
Earlier: "... I am not about to make you think of an elephant ..."
Okay ... go ahead.
Monahon, Peter B. wrote:
[We each respond in our own time cycles - I don't read the list by the hour, more by the day or week. If you've had enough thoughts on this, please scroll on! Otherwise ... this is more about Wikipedia banning, not this list, and I try to remove any personal references. Here are my thoughts ... 1,388 words:]
Indeed. I don't participate on IRC because it is not an atmosphere conducive to taking time to think about what one is saying, or sometimes to looking something up to back up what one is saying.
Earlier: "... As is it if you know how [so-and-so] acts on IRC ...
Many ops suspect that [they] did a few of the bot attacks on #wikipedia. (Maybe just suspicion, but nevertheless, it's suspicious.) ..."
Great - ban someone on Wikipedia because of their (suspected) actions OFF Wikipedia!
And the logic is ...?
We're building an incentive for admins to spend their time looking for people to ban, and look even harder by looking OFF Wikipedia to invent reasons to ban them.
We are incentivizing building a Wikipedia Secret Police!
We should be incentivizing building a Wikipedia community, building an encyclopedia!
Does anyone have any ideas how to incorporate ALL our members into the Wikipedia community?
Hell no! If you did that there's a serious risk that these people might want something different from the comfort of the present. ;-)
Earlier: "... If ... the mailing list becomes disagreeable to the
majority of its active users ... to the point that they leave and go elsewhere, what has been gained? ..."
What's been gained?
People taking responsibility for themselves!
That problem extends far beyond our wiki borders.
... rather than abdicating their responsibilities to a moderator to second-guess for them and make life supposedly easier for them - read: sterilized!
Banning and deleting are not the only ways to "moderate" a list, or Wikipedia. Why not dive in, moderate, set an example, and inspire BOTH sides to play well together more effectively?
People raise their children differently these days. Over protect a child and you end up with a child unable to protect himself. Parents who try too hard to provide online protection don't understand the problems unless they have had considerable online time themselves. This results in a lot of confused kids ready to pass on the confusion to the next generation.
Earlier: "... [they] had two accounts ... [they] used one to recommend
the other be unblocked without making it clear you controlled both. That's abusive use of sockpuppets, and the blocks are valid ..."
Oh, puleeze!
One does need to distinguish between the use of sockpuppets and the abusive use of sockpuppets. Making the claim of "abusive" does not make it so.
Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm even maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who banned me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
FYI: It's [[Koan]] rather than "Cohan". I doubt that the Buddhists would have been big advocates of Yankee-Doodle Dandyism. :-)
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
Earlier: "... Dialogue is crucial; I personally would like to engage
those who fear they will be moderated, because I cannot think of a reason they would fear that ..."
Here's a reason: at least because people get banned from one place for their actions elsewhere! So, if Wikipedia had a no-banning policy, all this noise and destructiveness would come to a grinding halt, and ALL venues would open up to be more effective vehicles for community integration! Really. It works. Freedom, though messy, is contagious, and is way easier and more inclusive in the long run than the alternative.
"Fear of moderation," to mention only one such fear, reflects a kind of zeitgeist. So does a fear that the terrorists are out to destroy our way of life. Rational analysis is only acceptable if it supports fear mongering.
These fear may be irrational, but they exist. People don't want the hassle; they prefer being overly compliant because life's easier and more convenient that way. They prefer putting themselves at a disadvantage, because even the risk of the most unlikely consequences is too much to take.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” - Edward R. Murrow.
Earlier: "... engaged in behavior that should result in [their]
moderation? What exactly is that behavior? ..."
What behavior warrants moderation? Let's keep it simple: spam and vandals only.
Otherwise, let the readers do their own editing, deleting, and scrolling-on.
Simple, no?
Seems simple enough for me.
Ec
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm even maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who banned me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
FYI: It's [[Koan]] rather than "Cohan". I doubt that the Buddhists would have been big advocates of Yankee-Doodle Dandyism. :-)
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
Excuse me? What is the point of posting a vague alarmist description of apparent terror imposed on the list by ostensibly totalitarian mods, and then refusing to disclose any details, or provide any means of obtaining details from or otherwise engaging in conversation with those who fear retaliation? Is there any other way to approach the issue? If there isn't, then why broach it if there is no feasible way to address it?
I'm not even asking that I see the specific emails or for the names of those worried to be revealed publicly. They can contact me or any of the other mods with their concerns; we never place people on moderation for off-list incidents.
If these people have no intent of seeking to address the problem, but instead find someone else to make a vague explanation of the problem on the list, while refusing to come forward (at least to the mods or a mod) to aid resolution of the issues at hand, then how do you expect *anything* to move forward?
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm even maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who banned me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
Excuse me? What is the point of posting a vague alarmist description of apparent terror imposed on the list by ostensibly totalitarian mods, and then refusing to disclose any details, or provide any means of obtaining details from or otherwise engaging in conversation with those who fear retaliation? Is there any other way to approach the issue? If there isn't, then why broach it if there is no feasible way to address it?
This seems like a hypersensitive reaction. The terms "alarmist description" and "totalitarian mods" are yours, not that of the person who mentioned the private e-mails. Revealing names or outing the people who complained in confidence will have no bearing on finding a solution. In many respects revealing those names will give some the chance to personalise the problem, thereby avoiding the real issues. At best personalising the issue will only solve the problem as it relates to those individuals.
I have no reason to believe that Marc acted dishonestly in raising these facts.
I'm not even asking that I see the specific emails or for the names of those worried to be revealed publicly. They can contact me or any of the other mods with their concerns; we never place people on moderation for off-list incidents.
What difference will it make if they contact you?
If these people have no intent of seeking to address the problem, but instead find someone else to make a vague explanation of the problem on the list, while refusing to come forward (at least to the mods or a mod) to aid resolution of the issues at hand, then how do you expect *anything* to move forward?
Maybe it's just not about just solving individual problems.
Ec
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm
even
maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who
banned
me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
Excuse me? What is the point of posting a vague alarmist description of apparent terror imposed on the list by ostensibly totalitarian mods, and then refusing to disclose any details, or provide any means of obtaining details from or otherwise engaging in conversation with those who fear retaliation? Is there any other way to approach the issue? If there
isn't,
then why broach it if there is no feasible way to address it?
This seems like a hypersensitive reaction. The terms "alarmist description" and "totalitarian mods" are yours, not that of the person who mentioned the private e-mails.
Well, I'm glad I'm the only one who got that impression then. These apparent insinuations that we are an insufficiently open community reflect on the moderators of the list - but then maybe that's just my point of view.
Revealing names or outing the people
who complained in confidence will have no bearing on finding a solution. In many respects revealing those names will give some the chance to personalise the problem, thereby avoiding the real issues. At best personalising the issue will only solve the problem as it relates to those individuals.
I asked for concrete details of the problem and/or a way to contact those concerned. Marc had responded to such an earlier request citing privacy issues. If we cannot even have a concrete description of the problem sans names, nor a way to contact those concerned to find out the issue, do tell me what way there is to resolve the problem.
I have no reason to believe that Marc acted dishonestly in raising these
facts.
Neither do I; I'm just wondering why he would hint that the mods are inappropriately stifling discourse but refuse to divulge further reasons for this belief.
I'm not even asking that I see the specific emails or for the names of those
worried to be revealed publicly. They can contact me or any of the other mods with their concerns; we never place people on moderation for
off-list
incidents.
What difference will it make if they contact you?
They need not expose who they are in public, which I think is what they want. No?
If these people have no intent of seeking to address the problem, but
instead find someone else to make a vague explanation of the problem on
the
list, while refusing to come forward (at least to the mods or a mod) to
aid
resolution of the issues at hand, then how do you expect *anything* to
move
forward?
Maybe it's just not about just solving individual problems.
Yes, as I said, it seems clear Marc is pushing for a philosophical change. He is free to do that, but in view of the general pragmatism Wikipedians adopt, unless he can present a real problem that this philosophical change will resolve, he will not make much headway. I am trying to understand the problem(s) that he feels would be resolved by this alteration of our philosophy.
Johnleemk
Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm
even
maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who
banned
me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
John Lee wrote:
Excuse me? What is the point of posting a vague alarmist description of apparent terror imposed on the list by ostensibly totalitarian mods, and then refusing to disclose any details, or provide any means of obtaining details from or otherwise engaging in conversation with those who fear retaliation? Is there any other way to approach the issue? If there
isn't,
then why broach it if there is no feasible way to address it?
This seems like a hypersensitive reaction. The terms "alarmist description" and "totalitarian mods" are yours, not that of the person who mentioned the private e-mails.
on 9/7/07 8:56 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm glad I'm the only one who got that impression then. These apparent insinuations that we are an insufficiently open community reflect on the moderators of the list - but then maybe that's just my point of view.
Revealing names or outing the people
who complained in confidence will have no bearing on finding a solution. In many respects revealing those names will give some the chance to personalise the problem, thereby avoiding the real issues. At best personalising the issue will only solve the problem as it relates to those individuals.
I asked for concrete details of the problem and/or a way to contact those concerned. Marc had responded to such an earlier request citing privacy issues. If we cannot even have a concrete description of the problem sans names, nor a way to contact those concerned to find out the issue, do tell me what way there is to resolve the problem.
I have no reason to believe that Marc acted dishonestly in raising these
facts.
Neither do I; I'm just wondering why he would hint that the mods are inappropriately stifling discourse but refuse to divulge further reasons for this belief.
I'm not even asking that I see the specific emails or for the names of those
worried to be revealed publicly. They can contact me or any of the other mods with their concerns; we never place people on moderation for
off-list
incidents.
What difference will it make if they contact you?
They need not expose who they are in public, which I think is what they want. No?
If these people have no intent of seeking to address the problem, but
instead find someone else to make a vague explanation of the problem on
the
list, while refusing to come forward (at least to the mods or a mod) to
aid
resolution of the issues at hand, then how do you expect *anything* to
move
forward?
Maybe it's just not about just solving individual problems.
Yes, as I said, it seems clear Marc is pushing for a philosophical change. He is free to do that, but in view of the general pragmatism Wikipedians adopt, unless he can present a real problem that this philosophical change will resolve, he will not make much headway. I am trying to understand the problem(s) that he feels would be resolved by this alteration of our philosophy.
Ok, John,
Philosophical and ethical. If the persons I referred to wish to email you, and feel comfortable doing so, they will. They are the symptoms; I am trying to present to the disease.
I am asking for more openness in the relationship between the moderators and the contributors of this list; which is also needed in the larger area of Wikipedia administrators and editors.
I don't have a clue who these people are - except a name (which may, or not, be their real one). I have no idea of their qualifications or motivations for censoring what I read - and actually, ultimately, being able to decide whether I have the right to speak at all. These persons have powerful tools at their disposal. I would like to know that they have the mature judgment to use them. The "trust me, I'm a moderator (administrator)" doesn't cut it anymore. The culture of the project is changing, as more and more diverse persons become involved; and, among other things, a demand for more openness between labor and management is inevitable. Those still locked into the mindsets present in the Project's infancy are going to find themselves struggling more and more, and becoming more and more frustrated.
Marc Riddell
On 07/09/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
> Earlier: "... I receive ... private > emails from Members of this List > Community ... persons ... NOT banned > or moderated ... but who fear > ending up that way [anywhere] if > they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm even maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who banned me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
> On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe that the discussion could move forward >>>>> unless these trusts
were broken.
John Lee wrote:
Excuse me? What is the point of posting a vague alarmist description of apparent terror imposed on the list by ostensibly totalitarian mods, and then refusing to disclose any details, or provide any means of obtaining details from or otherwise engaging in conversation with those who fear retaliation? Is there any other way to approach the issue? If there isn't, then why broach it if there is no feasible way to address it?
This seems like a hypersensitive reaction. The terms "alarmist description" and "totalitarian mods" are yours, not that of the person who mentioned the private e-mails.
on 9/7/07 8:56 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm glad I'm the only one who got that impression then. These apparent insinuations that we are an insufficiently open community reflect on the moderators of the list - but then maybe that's just my point of view.
Revealing names or outing the people who complained in confidence will have no bearing on finding a solution. In many respects revealing those names will give some the chance to personalise the problem, thereby avoiding the real issues. At best personalising the issue will only solve the problem as it relates to those individuals.
I asked for concrete details of the problem and/or a way to contact those concerned. Marc had responded to such an earlier request citing privacy issues. If we cannot even have a concrete description of the problem sans names, nor a way to contact those concerned to find out the issue, do tell me what way there is to resolve the problem.
I have no reason to believe that Marc acted dishonestly in raising these facts.
Neither do I; I'm just wondering why he would hint that the mods are inappropriately stifling discourse but refuse to divulge further reasons for this belief.
I'm not even asking that I see the specific emails or for the names of those worried to be revealed publicly. They can contact me or any of the other mods with their concerns; we never place people on moderation for off-list incidents.
What difference will it make if they contact you?
They need not expose who they are in public, which I think is what they want. No?
If these people have no intent of seeking to address the problem, but
instead find someone else to make a vague explanation of the problem on the list, while refusing to come forward (at least to the mods or a mod) to aid resolution of the issues at hand, then how do you expect *anything* to move forward?
Maybe it's just not about just solving individual problems.
Yes, as I said, it seems clear Marc is pushing for a philosophical change. He is free to do that, but in view of the general pragmatism Wikipedians adopt, unless he can present a real problem that this philosophical change will resolve, he will not make much headway. I am trying to understand the problem(s) that he feels would be resolved by this alteration of our philosophy.
Ok, John,
Philosophical and ethical. If the persons I referred to wish to email you, and feel comfortable doing so, they will. They are the symptoms; I am trying to present to the disease.
I am asking for more openness in the relationship between the moderators and the contributors of this list; which is also needed in the larger area of Wikipedia administrators and editors.
I think what you want is USENET, back in the days before public archival, when everyone used killfiles to filter their subscriptions.
So again, if I wrote patches for Mailman, would they be used?
I don't have a clue who these people are - except a name (which may, or not, be their real one).
Read their posts, then. Talk to them. That's generally how you get to know someone.
I have no idea of their qualifications or motivations for censoring what I read - and actually, ultimately, being able to decide whether I have the right to speak at all. These persons have powerful tools at their disposal. I would like to know that they have the mature judgment to use them. The "trust me, I'm a moderator (administrator)" doesn't cut it anymore. The culture of the project is changing, as more and more diverse persons become involved; and, among other things, a demand for more openness between labor and management is inevitable. Those still locked into the mindsets present in the Project's infancy are going to find themselves struggling more and more, and becoming more and more frustrated.
Marc Riddell
Monahon, Peter B. wrote:
[We each respond in our own time cycles - I don't read the list by the hour, more by the day or week. If you've had enough thoughts on this, please scroll on! Otherwise ... this is more about Wikipedia banning, not this list, and I try to remove any personal references. Here are my thoughts ... 1,388 words:]
on 9/6/07 2:06 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Indeed. I don't participate on IRC because it is not an atmosphere conducive to taking time to think about what one is saying, or sometimes to looking something up to back up what one is saying.
Earlier: "... As is it if you know how [so-and-so] acts on IRC ...
Many ops suspect that [they] did a few of the bot attacks on #wikipedia. (Maybe just suspicion, but nevertheless, it's suspicious.) ..."
Great - ban someone on Wikipedia because of their (suspected) actions OFF Wikipedia!
And the logic is ...?
We're building an incentive for admins to spend their time looking for people to ban, and look even harder by looking OFF Wikipedia to invent reasons to ban them.
We are incentivizing building a Wikipedia Secret Police!
We should be incentivizing building a Wikipedia community, building an encyclopedia!
Does anyone have any ideas how to incorporate ALL our members into the Wikipedia community?
Hell no! If you did that there's a serious risk that these people might want something different from the comfort of the present. ;-)
Earlier: "... If ... the mailing list becomes disagreeable to the
majority of its active users ... to the point that they leave and go elsewhere, what has been gained? ..."
What's been gained?
People taking responsibility for themselves!
That problem extends far beyond our wiki borders.
... rather than abdicating their responsibilities to a moderator to second-guess for them and make life supposedly easier for them - read: sterilized!
Banning and deleting are not the only ways to "moderate" a list, or Wikipedia. Why not dive in, moderate, set an example, and inspire BOTH sides to play well together more effectively?
People raise their children differently these days. Over protect a child and you end up with a child unable to protect himself. Parents who try too hard to provide online protection don't understand the problems unless they have had considerable online time themselves. This results in a lot of confused kids ready to pass on the confusion to the next generation.
Earlier: "... [they] had two accounts ... [they] used one to recommend
the other be unblocked without making it clear you controlled both. That's abusive use of sockpuppets, and the blocks are valid ..."
Oh, puleeze!
One does need to distinguish between the use of sockpuppets and the abusive use of sockpuppets. Making the claim of "abusive" does not make it so.
Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
Ditto. Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list. I'm even maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who banned me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was one!
FYI: It's [[Koan]] rather than "Cohan". I doubt that the Buddhists would have been big advocates of Yankee-Doodle Dandyism. :-)
The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
Earlier: "... Dialogue is crucial; I personally would like to engage
those who fear they will be moderated, because I cannot think of a reason they would fear that ..."
Here's a reason: at least because people get banned from one place for their actions elsewhere! So, if Wikipedia had a no-banning policy, all this noise and destructiveness would come to a grinding halt, and ALL venues would open up to be more effective vehicles for community integration! Really. It works. Freedom, though messy, is contagious, and is way easier and more inclusive in the long run than the alternative.
"Fear of moderation," to mention only one such fear, reflects a kind of zeitgeist. So does a fear that the terrorists are out to destroy our way of life. Rational analysis is only acceptable if it supports fear mongering.
These fear may be irrational, but they exist. People don't want the hassle; they prefer being overly compliant because life's easier and more convenient that way. They prefer putting themselves at a disadvantage, because even the risk of the most unlikely consequences is too much to take.
³A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.² - Edward R. Murrow.
Earlier: "... engaged in behavior that should result in [their]
moderation? What exactly is that behavior? ..."
What behavior warrants moderation? Let's keep it simple: spam and vandals only.
Otherwise, let the readers do their own editing, deleting, and scrolling-on.
Simple, no?
Seems simple enough for me.
Yes, simplicity itself.
I would just like to add an additional thought to this thread (which could also apply to the "moderation" one):
In 60s Berkeley, it was not a war that began all of the fuss on campus; nor was it People's Park. The various student groups and organizations, as had been tradition, maintained and manned folding tables in an open area of the campus where we distributed literature and announcements of meetings. The administration decided that a couple of the groups were distributing "disturbing and unnecessarily controversial" materials which "was not relevant to the purpose or mission of the university". All hell broke loose. We were asking for more openness: the freedom to speak - as well as the freedom to know. And who were we fighting? A paternalistic, "trust us, we know what's best for you" administration. It takes just one voice to start a protest - but many to bring about change.
As far as my dialogues on this List: I make it a point never to argue with a ideologue. It's like a ship arguing with an iceberg. Instead, I merely change course and go in a different & wiser direction. In time the sun will take care of it.
Marc
On 9/7/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes, simplicity itself.
I would just like to add an additional thought to this thread (which could also apply to the "moderation" one):
In 60s Berkeley, it was not a war that began all of the fuss on campus; nor was it People's Park. The various student groups and organizations, as had been tradition, maintained and manned folding tables in an open area of the campus where we distributed literature and announcements of meetings. The administration decided that a couple of the groups were distributing "disturbing and unnecessarily controversial" materials which "was not relevant to the purpose or mission of the university". All hell broke loose. We were asking for more openness: the freedom to speak - as well as the freedom to know. And who were we fighting? A paternalistic, "trust us, we know what's best for you" administration. It takes just one voice to start a protest - but many to bring about change.
As far as my dialogues on this List: I make it a point never to argue with a ideologue. It's like a ship arguing with an iceberg. Instead, I merely change course and go in a different & wiser direction. In time the sun will take care of it.
[[WP:NOT]] - Wikipedia is not a democracy, not a soapbox, etc. The mailing list is significantly looser, but we do expect discussions to be at least somehow related to Wikipedia, as a bare minimum. Not disrupting discussions about Wikipedia is a secondary concern, one we're not particularly eager to tackle unless it's clear the list is reacting very unhealthily to it (to the point that the mods and the list are both receiving several complaints).
I don't understand this fetish people have for comparing Wikipedia to a democracy. We're an encyclopaedia-writing project; our models should be non-profits and not governments. We have significantly more leeway because we operate on the internet (I have my doubts about the efficacy of the wiki model when applied to, say, Red Cross work), but ultimately we are a project to write an encyclopaedia. Those advocating an organisational or governance model abstracted directly from a national government should explain why this is a relevant model to adopt.
As I said, Marc, you are making philosophical points; you are not addressing the concrete issues in any way (perhaps because as you admit, you prefer to ignore them and take your own tack). Can you present an example of where we've had to moderate someone with ultimately negative effects for the project directly because of this?
I can appreciate the need for absolute or near-absolute freedom of speech; I am an advocate of it politically in my own country. But in a project, as you yourself have said in the past, some leadership, some guidance, some fella who ultimately has the authority to say "take it or leave it", is required. Even parliaments need someone to preside over their proceedings; the model we use for this mailing list is thus actually far more open because everyone has the floor - only those on moderation need permission to speak.
Since this has now progressed into a philosophical debate, if there is no further concrete issue that needs resolution, I think I have said more than my fair share.
Johnleemk
on 9/6/07 5:44 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes, simplicity itself.
I would just like to add an additional thought to this thread (which could also apply to the "moderation" one):
In 60s Berkeley, it was not a war that began all of the fuss on campus; nor was it People's Park. The various student groups and organizations, as had been tradition, maintained and manned folding tables in an open area of the campus where we distributed literature and announcements of meetings. The administration decided that a couple of the groups were distributing "disturbing and unnecessarily controversial" materials which "was not relevant to the purpose or mission of the university". All hell broke loose. We were asking for more openness: the freedom to speak - as well as the freedom to know. And who were we fighting? A paternalistic, "trust us, we know what's best for you" administration. It takes just one voice to start a protest - but many to bring about change.
As far as my dialogues on this List: I make it a point never to argue with a ideologue. It's like a ship arguing with an iceberg. Instead, I merely change course and go in a different & wiser direction. In time the sun will take care of it.
[[WP:NOT]] - Wikipedia is not a democracy, not a soapbox, etc. The mailing list is significantly looser, but we do expect discussions to be at least somehow related to Wikipedia, as a bare minimum. Not disrupting discussions about Wikipedia is a secondary concern, one we're not particularly eager to tackle unless it's clear the list is reacting very unhealthily to it (to the point that the mods and the list are both receiving several complaints).
I don't understand this fetish people have for comparing Wikipedia to a democracy. We're an encyclopaedia-writing project; our models should be non-profits and not governments. We have significantly more leeway because we operate on the internet (I have my doubts about the efficacy of the wiki model when applied to, say, Red Cross work), but ultimately we are a project to write an encyclopaedia. Those advocating an organisational or governance model abstracted directly from a national government should explain why this is a relevant model to adopt.
As I said, Marc, you are making philosophical points; you are not addressing the concrete issues in any way (perhaps because as you admit, you prefer to ignore them and take your own tack). Can you present an example of where we've had to moderate someone with ultimately negative effects for the project directly because of this?
I can appreciate the need for absolute or near-absolute freedom of speech; I am an advocate of it politically in my own country. But in a project, as you yourself have said in the past, some leadership, some guidance, some fella who ultimately has the authority to say "take it or leave it", is required. Even parliaments need someone to preside over their proceedings; the model we use for this mailing list is thus actually far more open because everyone has the floor - only those on moderation need permission to speak.
Since this has now progressed into a philosophical debate, if there is no further concrete issue that needs resolution, I think I have said more than my fair share.
Johnleemk
And the administrators said: "This is a university; how we treat the students is irrelevant to its mission".
Marc
On 06/09/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes, simplicity itself.
I would just like to add an additional thought to this thread (which could also apply to the "moderation" one):
In 60s Berkeley, it was not a war that began all of the fuss on campus; nor was it People's Park. The various student groups and organizations, as had been tradition, maintained and manned folding tables in an open area of the campus where we distributed literature and announcements of meetings. The administration decided that a couple of the groups were distributing "disturbing and unnecessarily controversial" materials which "was not relevant to the purpose or mission of the university". All hell broke loose. We were asking for more openness: the freedom to speak - as well as the freedom to know. And who were we fighting? A paternalistic, "trust us, we know what's best for you" administration. It takes just one voice to start a protest - but many to bring about change.
As far as my dialogues on this List: I make it a point never to argue with a ideologue. It's like a ship arguing with an iceberg. Instead, I merely change course and go in a different & wiser direction. In time the sun will take care of it.
[[WP:NOT]] - Wikipedia is not a democracy, not a soapbox, etc. The mailing list is significantly looser, but we do expect discussions to be at least somehow related to Wikipedia, as a bare minimum. Not disrupting discussions about Wikipedia is a secondary concern, one we're not particularly eager to tackle unless it's clear the list is reacting very unhealthily to it (to the point that the mods and the list are both receiving several complaints).
I don't understand this fetish people have for comparing Wikipedia to a democracy. We're an encyclopaedia-writing project; our models should be non-profits and not governments. We have significantly more leeway because we operate on the internet (I have my doubts about the efficacy of the wiki model when applied to, say, Red Cross work), but ultimately we are a project to write an encyclopaedia. Those advocating an organisational or governance model abstracted directly from a national government should explain why this is a relevant model to adopt.
As I said, Marc, you are making philosophical points; you are not addressing the concrete issues in any way (perhaps because as you admit, you prefer to ignore them and take your own tack). Can you present an example of where we've had to moderate someone with ultimately negative effects for the project directly because of this?
Dunno about moderation, but a number of people banned on Wikipaedia have, in their pain, gone to form or join websites which sometimes attack, or at least cause pain to, individual Wikipaedians. Or do you all not care about the pain of the individual Wikipaedians any more than you care about the pain of the banned users?
Y'all ought to, if not for morality then at least for your own safety. 'We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.'
I'm working on a statistical study....
I can appreciate the need for absolute or near-absolute freedom of speech; I am an advocate of it politically in my own country. But in a project, as you yourself have said in the past, some leadership, some guidance, some fella who ultimately has the authority to say "take it or leave it", is required. Even parliaments need someone to preside over their proceedings; the model we use for this mailing list is thus actually far more open because everyone has the floor - only those on moderation need permission to speak.
Since this has now progressed into a philosophical debate, if there is no further concrete issue that needs resolution, I think I have said more than my fair share.
Johnleemk