An open letter to Jimbo:
We really need your help.
These messages from Ed and KQ are really disturbing to me:
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-November/000018.html http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-November/000038.html
They and I suspect others are feeling weariness at having to deal on the list (now wikien-l; see: http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-November/date.html ) and on the website with a small but tiresomely droning cadre of what can probably most accurately be described as anarchists. They've basically taken over Wikipedia-l and drone on and on, engaging in what I think is really offensive political posturing and forcing old hands to defend policies long decided. At this point, it probably isn't necessary or helpful to name names, but the people reading this will be able to guess who I'm talking about.
Jimbo, many of us have put in many hours on the project, and who have left, want clearly enforceable standards--I think I'd be speaking for Julie Hoffman Kemp and Michael Tinkler, who are long gone, as well as Isis and many others who had less patience than they had. We, and many people who *haven't* left but who have toyed with the idea, are fed up with constantly having to deal with vandals, trolls, and idiots, and for that matter with the anarchists who defend and embolden them.
I know you strive very hard to be fair, to be slow in making potentially damaging decisions, and you rightly want to keep this project open and free. I totally agree that this is an excellent management policy. I also know that you're busy with money-making activities. But you really could help, I think, if you took a public stand on a few things.
For both of us and for most people reading this, these things should go without saying; but because they're constantly being hammered away at by the anarchists and some newbies, those of us who are defending these policies need your moral support. It would help if you somehow conveyed such things as the following:
* We will not tolerate biased content. The neutral point of view is not open to vote; it's decided. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
* There are certain other policies as well that basically define us as a community. We have arrived at them by broad consensus, and they should be respected. Wikipedians working in good faith should feel empowered to enforce those policies. They shouldn't have to apologize for doing so!
* We will not stop banning vandals. We should seek out the best ways we know how to make sure that non-vandals are not lumped in with the vandals, but please stop talking as if we'll just stop banning them, because it ain't gonna happen.
* We try to help newcomers who want to contribute but don't quite understand the body of good habits (and rules) we've built up. But we should not and *will* not tolerate forever people who are essentially attempting to undermine the system. See below.
* To whatever extent we are or are not, or should be, a democracy, the following is also true. We are a benevolent monarchy ruled by a "constitution" or, anyway, a developing body of common law that is not open to interpretation, but not vote. This has been the case from the beginning, and we aren't going to change that.
Again, you might think these things shouldn't need saying. You might not want to say all of them. But I really think these points need reiteration, and from *you*.
In addition to this, it would help a LOT for you to solicit draft statements of policy regarding clear circumstances in which people can be banned for being really egregiously difficult. There has to be a *reasonably* clear line drawn that distinguishes difficult but on-the-whole useful contributors, on the one hand, from contributors so egregiously difficult that the project suffers from their continued presence. The policy should codify, for example, the reasons why we did ban 24 and Helga, and the reasons why we might ban Lir. Let's have a discussion about this, bearing in mind that one option that is *not* on the table is that we might decide *not* to ban people for their trollish behavior at all. We definitely will, so let's make the policy clearer. You could start the discussion and make it clear that at some point soon, we *will* determine a policy.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth of course. I'm just saying that, IMO, Wikipedia is really suffering, and even losing people. You're in a position to help embolden the most productive members of the project, who it seems to me are, in at least some cases, getting very discouraged.
Larry
P.S. Folks, if you agree with me, maybe it would help to say so publicly or privately to Jimbo.
Larry Sanger wrote:
An open letter to Jimbo:
<snip>
P.S. Folks, if you agree with me, maybe it would help to say so publicly or privately to Jimbo.
Well, I do agree. Wikipedia has grown quite well, because we've been basically working by these rules. In a small community, that worked even without repeating these things over and again. With the size we have reached now, and more people finding their way to us, these things should be written down somewhere prominently. IMHO we shoule have a page "wikipedia:Jimbo's Golden Wikipedia Rules" ;-) and have it protected, because it won't be open to debate. This would not do any harm, as we already enforce NPOV etc., but it would help a lot if we could point newcomers there.
Magnus
Larry Sanger wrote in part:
They and I suspect others are feeling weariness at having to deal on the list and on the website with a small but tiresomely droning cadre of what can probably most accurately be described as anarchists. They've basically taken over Wikipedia-l and drone on and on, engaging in what I think is really offensive political posturing and forcing old hands to defend policies long decided. At this point, it probably isn't necessary or helpful to name names, but the people reading this will be able to guess who I'm talking about.
That's right, we know that you're talking about us, so don't think that we're not going to take your insults personally. "offensive political posturing" my eye! I care about this project as much as you do, whether you can believe it or not.
Jimbo, many of us have put in many hours on the project, and who have left, want clearly enforceable standards--I think I'd be speaking for Julie Hoffman Kemp and Michael Tinkler, who are long gone, as well as Isis and many others who had less patience than they had.
You have their email addresses, right? Then you don't have to guess. Probably they'll agree with you, to some extent, but if you want us to count them as your supporters, not just your reasons, then ask them.
- We will not tolerate biased content. The neutral point of view is not
open to vote; it's decided. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Other than TMC, we irresponsible anarchists agree.
- There are certain other policies as well that basically define us as a
community. We have arrived at them by broad consensus, and they should be respected. Wikipedians working in good faith should feel empowered to enforce those policies. They shouldn't have to apologize for doing so!
Apologise in the sense of "I'm sorry"? Certainly not. Apologise in the sense of justifying the policy? Certainly. For example, Lir has no business moving [[Christopher Columbus]] to [[Cristóbal Colón]] *now*, but it's her business as a Wikipedian to discuss changing the policy on the list.
- We will not stop banning vandals. We should seek out the best ways we
know how to make sure that non-vandals are not lumped in with the vandals, but please stop talking as if we'll just stop banning them, because it ain't gonna happen.
Gee, even KQ (the potential loss of whom is the immediate motivation of this post) doesn't want to ban anybody himself anymore. AFAICT, this is because of the practical problems with our methods, not because of some ideological desire to never ban anybody. But Cunc's preference for detecting vandalism better instead of banning people can be argued for on practical grounds too, on the idea that any IP banning method is problematic. (Although he hasn't convinced *me* yet -- so much for my ideological blindness.)
- We try to help newcomers who want to contribute but don't quite
understand the body of good habits (and rules) we've built up. But we should not and *will* not tolerate forever people who are essentially attempting to undermine the system. See below.
Considering that it's not standard policy *now* to ban intolerable users that aren't vandals (except in special cases with Jimmy's involvement), I think that you ought to stop this pretense that you're merely trying to preserve our current system.
- To whatever extent we are or are not, or should be, a democracy, the
following is also true. We are a benevolent monarchy ruled by a "constitution" or, anyway, a developing body of common law that is not open to interpretation, but not vote. This has been the case from the beginning, and we aren't going to change that.
Wait, you mean that the proposers of *voting* are the *anarchists*? Do you still think that Erik is an anarchist or some such thing? Get a clue, man!
In addition to this, it would help a LOT for you to solicit draft statements of policy regarding clear circumstances in which people can be banned for being really egregiously difficult. There has to be a *reasonably* clear line drawn that distinguishes difficult but on-the-whole useful contributors, on the one hand, from contributors so egregiously difficult that the project suffers from their continued presence. The policy should codify, for example, the reasons why we did ban 24 and Helga, and the reasons why we might ban Lir. Let's have a discussion about this, bearing in mind that one option that is *not* on the table is that we might decide *not* to ban people for their trollish behavior at all. We definitely will, so let's make the policy clearer. You could start the discussion and make it clear that at some point soon, we *will* determine a policy.
IOW, let's decide before the discussion that we will change policy, and only leave the discussion open to *how*. I support a discussion about policy for banning what you call "trolls" (not that Helga, much less Lir, is *actually* a troll), but let's not a priori rule out the views of a sizable group.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth of course.
You just assume that Jimbo will agree with you about everything. Well, we'll see.
I'm just saying that, IMO, Wikipedia is really suffering, and even losing people.
We're losing people and gaining people, and I don't just mean gaining Lir. If you think that nobody will or should ever leave Wikipedia (except people that you don't like and so banned, of course), then you're terribly naïve.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Ah, the voice of arrogance. I mean, isn't Larry always *obviously* right? Anybody that disagrees with him is either an ideologue or an idiot, and that's how it'll always be.
-- Toby
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote in part:
They and I suspect others are feeling weariness at having to deal on the list and on the website with a small but tiresomely droning cadre of what can probably most accurately be described as anarchists. They've basically taken over Wikipedia-l and drone on and on, engaging in what I think is really offensive political posturing and forcing old hands to defend policies long decided. At this point, it probably isn't necessary or helpful to name names, but the people reading this will be able to guess who I'm talking about.
That's right, we know that you're talking about us, so don't think that we're not going to take your insults personally. "offensive political posturing" my eye! I care about this project as much as you do, whether you can believe it or not.
You're trying to *change* the project, Toby.
Jimbo, many of us have put in many hours on the project, and who have left, want clearly enforceable standards--I think I'd be speaking for Julie Hoffman Kemp and Michael Tinkler, who are long gone, as well as Isis and many others who had less patience than they had.
You have their email addresses, right? Then you don't have to guess. Probably they'll agree with you, to some extent, but if you want us to count them as your supporters, not just your reasons, then ask them.
I am not guessing. I know them; I know they agree with this.
- We will not tolerate biased content. The neutral point of view is not
open to vote; it's decided. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Other than TMC, we irresponsible anarchists agree.
Except that it seems that at least some of you don't want it to be declared as *set policy*. That was my point, Toby.
- There are certain other policies as well that basically define us as a
community. We have arrived at them by broad consensus, and they should be respected. Wikipedians working in good faith should feel empowered to enforce those policies. They shouldn't have to apologize for doing so!
Apologise in the sense of "I'm sorry"? Certainly not. Apologise in the sense of justifying the policy? Certainly.
Certainly *not*. We should not *constantly* have to defend long-standing policies against the objections of new people who happen not to like them.
For example, Lir has no business moving [[Christopher Columbus]] to [[Cristóbal Colón]] *now*, but it's her business as a Wikipedian to discuss changing the policy on the list.
It seems to me she's wasting everyone's time. If she had asked "Gee, why is this the policy?" she might have learned something.
- We will not stop banning vandals. We should seek out the best ways we
know how to make sure that non-vandals are not lumped in with the vandals, but please stop talking as if we'll just stop banning them, because it ain't gonna happen.
Gee, even KQ (the potential loss of whom is the immediate motivation of this post) doesn't want to ban anybody himself anymore. AFAICT, this is because of the practical problems with our methods, not because of some ideological desire to never ban anybody.
Let him speak for himself.
- We try to help newcomers who want to contribute but don't quite
understand the body of good habits (and rules) we've built up. But we should not and *will* not tolerate forever people who are essentially attempting to undermine the system. See below.
Considering that it's not standard policy *now* to ban intolerable users that aren't vandals (except in special cases with Jimmy's involvement), I think that you ought to stop this pretense that you're merely trying to preserve our current system.
I'm not *just* trying to preserve the current system, indeed.
- To whatever extent we are or are not, or should be, a democracy, the
following is also true. We are a benevolent monarchy ruled by a "constitution" or, anyway, a developing body of common law that is not open to interpretation, but not vote. This has been the case from the beginning, and we aren't going to change that.
Wait, you mean that the proposers of *voting* are the *anarchists*? Do you still think that Erik is an anarchist or some such thing? Get a clue, man!
Uh, no, Toby, that isn't what I meant.
In addition to this, it would help a LOT for you to solicit draft statements of policy regarding clear circumstances in which people can be banned for being really egregiously difficult. There has to be a *reasonably* clear line drawn that distinguishes difficult but on-the-whole useful contributors, on the one hand, from contributors so egregiously difficult that the project suffers from their continued presence. The policy should codify, for example, the reasons why we did ban 24 and Helga, and the reasons why we might ban Lir. Let's have a discussion about this, bearing in mind that one option that is *not* on the table is that we might decide *not* to ban people for their trollish behavior at all. We definitely will, so let's make the policy clearer. You could start the discussion and make it clear that at some point soon, we *will* determine a policy.
IOW, let's decide before the discussion that we will change policy, and only leave the discussion open to *how*. I support a discussion about policy for banning what you call "trolls" (not that Helga, much less Lir, is *actually* a troll), but let's not a priori rule out the views of a sizable group.
Yes, I'm asking Jimbo to take a controversial stand that might offend a group of anarchists. What amazing gall I have.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth of course.
You just assume that Jimbo will agree with you about everything. Well, we'll see.
No, I certainly do not, Toby. In fact, I'm very worried that he might disagree on some point that I personally regard as key.
I'm just saying that, IMO, Wikipedia is really suffering, and even losing people.
We're losing people and gaining people, and I don't just mean gaining Lir. If you think that nobody will or should ever leave Wikipedia (except people that you don't like and so banned, of course), then you're terribly naïve.
Toby, please--I founded this project and have watched it from the beginning. I know that people leave all the time. You obviously did not understand my point in your desire to poke holes in whatever I had to say. The point is that there are a lot of people who just will not work in an environment when trolls can wander around and wreak havoc with no public repercussions.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Ah, the voice of arrogance. I mean, isn't Larry always *obviously* right? Anybody that disagrees with him is either an ideologue or an idiot, and that's how it'll always be.
Boy, have a look in the mirror, dude.
Larry
Magnus Manske wrote:
IMHO we shoule have a page "wikipedia:Jimbo's Golden Wikipedia Rules" ;-) and have it protected, because it won't be open to debate. This would not do any harm, as we already enforce NPOV etc., but it would help a lot if we could point newcomers there.
How about [[User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles]]?
(We still need to implement the final paragraph of #2.)
-- Toby
Larry Sanger wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
That's right, we know that you're talking about us, so don't think that we're not going to take your insults personally. "offensive political posturing" my eye! I care about this project as much as you do, whether you can believe it or not.
You're trying to *change* the project, Toby.
I'm trying to *change* the project??? Let's see, there's a discussion on a naming convention where I'm in favour of the change, but that's hardly central to the project. OTOH, I'm defending the NPOV, a very central point, to newbies. When you came on with ideas about how we were dying and you wanted to make us more acceptable to "experts", I was part of the chorus of scepticism that led you to take your ideas to the sifter project (where I think that they can do some good) and leave Wikipedia itself unaltered. Now I'm opposed both to the voting movement and to the idea of banning more people (even though these are coming from opposite groups), although at the same time I support continuing to ban vandals. I'm trying to *change* the project???
Larry Sanger wrote:
I think I'd be speaking for Julie Hoffman Kemp and Michael Tinkler, who are long gone, as well as Isis and many others who had less patience than they had.
You have their email addresses, right? Then you don't have to guess. Probably they'll agree with you, to some extent, but if you want us to count them as your supporters, not just your reasons, then ask them.
I am not guessing. I know them; I know they agree with this.
So you're still in touch with them about this. OK, that's fine.
- We will not tolerate biased content. The neutral point of view is not
open to vote; it's decided. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Other than TMC, we irresponsible anarchists agree.
Except that it seems that at least some of you don't want it to be declared as *set policy*. That was my point, Toby.
Sure, I'd want to keep NPOV as a set policy. It's a core value, which I'd like to see on mav's proposed terms of conditions page. Perhaps I'm to the right of the other "anarchists" on this, but even Cunc supports NPOV, even if he has his whole [[m:NPOV is an ideal]] thing.
From some perspective, once Jimbo's last minute dictatorial powers
pass into the hands of a democratically elected board of trustees, then even the NPOV might conceivably be changed -- heck, it might *conceivably* be changed *now* if Jimbo went mad and declared it no longer operational -- but then I would leave, like you, and join the inevitable fork.
Apologise in the sense of justifying the policy? Certainly.
Certainly *not*. We should not *constantly* have to defend long-standing policies against the objections of new people who happen not to like them.
Then how do you expect the new people to learn about them?
For example, Lir has no business moving [[Christopher Columbus]] to [[Cristóbal Colón]] *now*, but it's her business as a Wikipedian to discuss changing the policy on the list.
It seems to me she's wasting everyone's time. If she had asked "Gee, why is this the policy?" she might have learned something.
Not if everybody refused to defend it to her. Luckily mav is defending it well right now. As for wasting everybody's time, this seems unlikely when several people, including some old hands, have come out in agreement with her. We'll probably lose, and that's OK, but the idea that discussion is over is absurd. (She could certainly be more diplomatic, however!)
Gee, even KQ (the potential loss of whom is the immediate motivation of this post) doesn't want to ban anybody himself anymore. AFAICT, this is because of the practical problems with our methods, not because of some ideological desire to never ban anybody.
Let him speak for himself.
Like you let Julie, Michael, and Isis speak for themselves? I don't want to attribute anything to him that he hasn't said, which is why you see a disclaimer there with the "AFAICT". But he *has* told me that he doesn't want to ban anybody under the current system.
But he's subscribed to this list, so I hope that he'll clarify. I also help that he'll clarify whether is reasons for leaving include what you suggested: weariness at having to deal with us anarchists.
- To whatever extent we are or are not, or should be, a democracy, the
following is also true. We are a benevolent monarchy ruled by a "constitution" or, anyway, a developing body of common law that is not open to interpretation, but not vote. This has been the case from the beginning, and we aren't going to change that.
Wait, you mean that the proposers of *voting* are the *anarchists*? Do you still think that Erik is an anarchist or some such thing? Get a clue, man!
Uh, no, Toby, that isn't what I meant.
OK, then what do you mean? I thought that your opponents were anarchists, newbies, and trolls. Which of these is Erik? Actually, anarchist theory has a strong presumption that voting is a suspect and corruptible method of democracy (although certainly better than anything undemocratic to begin with).
IOW, let's decide before the discussion that we will change policy, and only leave the discussion open to *how*. I support a discussion about policy for banning what you call "trolls" (not that Helga, much less Lir, is *actually* a troll), but let's not a priori rule out the views of a sizable group.
Yes, I'm asking Jimbo to take a controversial stand that might offend a group of anarchists. What amazing gall I have.
I don't think that it requires gall to ask him to take such a stand. I *do* think that it requires gall to suggest that we make a change in policy that isn't widely agreed upon, and move to discussion only about *how* to make that change.
You just assume that Jimbo will agree with you about everything. Well, we'll see.
No, I certainly do not, Toby. In fact, I'm very worried that he might disagree on some point that I personally regard as key.
OK, good, I misinterpreted your suggestion that "these things shouldn't need saying". You only said that he *might* think that, and then that he "might not want to say all of them". My apologies.
I'm just saying that, IMO, Wikipedia is really suffering, and even losing people.
We're losing people and gaining people, and I don't just mean gaining Lir. If you think that nobody will or should ever leave Wikipedia (except people that you don't like and so banned, of course), then you're terribly naïve.
Toby, please--I founded this project and have watched it from the beginning. I know that people leave all the time. You obviously did not understand my point in your desire to poke holes in whatever I had to say.
I obviously didn't understand your point, but it wasn't through any desire to poke holes in whatever you say. My only desire is to do what's best for Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you and I don't agree on what that is, but both of our hearts are in the right place.
The point is that there are a lot of people who just will not work in an environment when trolls can wander around and wreak havoc with no public repercussions.
By "trolls", you mean people like TMC and Lir? While they both (damnedly) enjoy upsetting people, that's not why they're here; they're both trying to contribute. As Wikipedia grows, we'll get more annoying but well-meaning users, and unless we become a police state (in an appropriate metaphorical sense), we won't be able to get by with only users with thin skins. Luckily, we don't have to; trolls or no trolls, we still get more and more users all the time.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Ah, the voice of arrogance. I mean, isn't Larry always *obviously* right? Anybody that disagrees with him is either an ideologue or an idiot, and that's how it'll always be.
Boy, have a look in the mirror, dude.
Well, let's see. I don't merely insist that my opinions are obvious when they're challenged, and I don't accuse those that disagree with me of being blinded by ideology or being idiots. If you want to return my insults with insults, then I'm sure that you can find some that actually fit.
But it wasn't fair to bring your sig into the discussion. I'm letting my personal feelings slip in here again. My apologies.
-- Toby
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
That's right, we know that you're talking about us, so don't think that we're not going to take your insults personally. "offensive political posturing" my eye! I care about this project as much as you do, whether you can believe it or not.
You're trying to *change* the project, Toby.
I'm trying to *change* the project???
OK, maybe not.
Let's see, there's a discussion on a naming convention where I'm in favour of the change, but that's hardly central to the project.
I agree there.
OTOH, I'm defending the NPOV, a very central point, to newbies.
This is good, though it shouldn't be necessary at this point.
When you came on with ideas about how we were dying and you wanted to make us more acceptable to "experts", I was part of the chorus of scepticism that led you to take your ideas to the sifter project (where I think that they can do some good) and leave Wikipedia itself unaltered.
You apparently never did read my proposal carefully. You could actually go back and read it. I have *always, always* said that any such project should leave Wikipedia alone, and the "chorus of scepticism" you joined was pretty much a chorus of confusion and misunderstanding.
Now I'm opposed both to the voting movement and to the idea of banning more people (even though these are coming from opposite groups),
Aha, the latter would be a significant change and would essentially render Wikipedia an anarchy; we might disagree with that, which is why we might disagree on the label (wiki-) anarchism.
although at the same time I support continuing to ban vandals. I'm trying to *change* the project???
Not as far as most of those listed items goes.
My point wasn't really about you, Toby.
- We will not tolerate biased content. The neutral point of view is not
open to vote; it's decided. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Other than TMC, we irresponsible anarchists agree.
Except that it seems that at least some of you don't want it to be declared as *set policy*. That was my point, Toby.
Sure, I'd want to keep NPOV as a set policy.
Thank you, that was my point.
It's a core value, which I'd like to see on mav's proposed terms of conditions page. Perhaps I'm to the right of the other "anarchists" on this, but even Cunc supports NPOV, even if he has his whole [[m:NPOV is an ideal]] thing.
No, I don't think he does. I think he's really confused (if it matters).
From some perspective, once Jimbo's last minute dictatorial powers
pass into the hands of a democratically elected board of trustees, then even the NPOV might conceivably be changed -- heck, it might *conceivably* be changed *now* if Jimbo went mad and declared it no longer operational -- but then I would leave, like you, and join the inevitable fork.
Apologise in the sense of justifying the policy? Certainly.
Certainly *not*. We should not *constantly* have to defend long-standing policies against the objections of new people who happen not to like them.
Then how do you expect the new people to learn about them?
Um, how about by reading the policies and the old talk pages about them?
For example, Lir has no business moving [[Christopher Columbus]] to [[Cristóbal Colón]] *now*, but it's her business as a Wikipedian to discuss changing the policy on the list.
It seems to me she's wasting everyone's time. If she had asked "Gee, why is this the policy?" she might have learned something.
Not if everybody refused to defend it to her.
In this particular case, the point she's making is such an obvious nonstarter that (with thanks and respect to those who actually *are* spending the time) I think it's a waste of time to argue with her.
As for wasting everybody's time, this seems unlikely when several people, including some old hands, have come out in agreement with her.
Who, besides you?
We'll probably lose, and that's OK, but the idea that discussion is over is absurd. (She could certainly be more diplomatic, however!)
Gee, even KQ (the potential loss of whom is the immediate motivation of this post) doesn't want to ban anybody himself anymore. AFAICT, this is because of the practical problems with our methods, not because of some ideological desire to never ban anybody.
Let him speak for himself.
Like you let Julie, Michael, and Isis speak for themselves?
Those are different things, Toby. Yes, OBVIOUSLY Julie, Michael, and Isis would agree with at least most if not all of the basic laundry list of defining principles I gave. The point we're discussing just above, though, is a totally different kettle of fish.
But he's subscribed to this list, so I hope that he'll clarify. I also help that he'll clarify whether is reasons for leaving include what you suggested: weariness at having to deal with us anarchists.
Right. Anyway, that's certainly *my* reason, and Isis has told me as much in e-mail; and you can look at Julie Hoffman Kemp's page:
- To whatever extent we are or are not, or should be, a democracy, the
following is also true. We are a benevolent monarchy ruled by a "constitution" or, anyway, a developing body of common law that is not open to interpretation, but not vote. This has been the case from the beginning, and we aren't going to change that.
Wait, you mean that the proposers of *voting* are the *anarchists*? Do you still think that Erik is an anarchist or some such thing? Get a clue, man!
Uh, no, Toby, that isn't what I meant.
OK, then what do you mean? I thought that your opponents were anarchists, newbies, and trolls. Which of these is Erik? Actually, anarchist theory has a strong presumption that voting is a suspect and corruptible method of democracy (although certainly better than anything undemocratic to begin with).
I don't know how you get ANY of that out of the part above that follows the *. If you read it, you'll see what I meant. That's what I meant.
IOW, let's decide before the discussion that we will change policy, and only leave the discussion open to *how*. I support a discussion about policy for banning what you call "trolls" (not that Helga, much less Lir, is *actually* a troll), but let's not a priori rule out the views of a sizable group.
Yes, I'm asking Jimbo to take a controversial stand that might offend a group of anarchists. What amazing gall I have.
I don't think that it requires gall to ask him to take such a stand. I *do* think that it requires gall to suggest that we make a change in policy that isn't widely agreed upon, and move to discussion only about *how* to make that change.
Except that it has already been decided--in the case of 24, Helga, and now Lir. And you'll even see in his reply to me that Jimbo is skeptical that there is anyone who actually opposes it!
You just assume that Jimbo will agree with you about everything. Well, we'll see.
No, I certainly do not, Toby. In fact, I'm very worried that he might disagree on some point that I personally regard as key.
OK, good, I misinterpreted your suggestion that "these things shouldn't need saying". You only said that he *might* think that, and then that he "might not want to say all of them". My apologies.
Thank you.
I'm just saying that, IMO, Wikipedia is really suffering, and even losing people.
We're losing people and gaining people, and I don't just mean gaining Lir. If you think that nobody will or should ever leave Wikipedia (except people that you don't like and so banned, of course), then you're terribly naïve.
Toby, please--I founded this project and have watched it from the beginning. I know that people leave all the time. You obviously did not understand my point in your desire to poke holes in whatever I had to say.
I obviously didn't understand your point, but it wasn't through any desire to poke holes in whatever you say.
You'll forgive me for continuing to be very skeptical about that.
My only desire is to do what's best for Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you and I don't agree on what that is, but both of our hearts are in the right place.
That's a good thing, I agree.
The point is that there are a lot of people who just will not work in an environment when trolls can wander around and wreak havoc with no public repercussions.
By "trolls", you mean people like TMC and Lir?
I like to distinguish trolls from trollish behavior. And there are of course different kinds of trolls. I think TMC acted quite trollishly in choosing his user name. Other than that, I'm not familiar with much trollishness on his part. As for Lir, of course Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a troll. As far as I can tell, at least half of what he does is specifically calculated to whip up controversy and upset people, even though he knows (and obviously doesn't care) that most people working on Wikipedia want to do so without having to deal with childish nonsense.
While they both (damnedly) enjoy upsetting people, that's not why they're here; they're both trying to contribute.
That's highly debatable in the case of Lir.
As Wikipedia grows, we'll get more annoying but well-meaning users,
You're not the first one to make *that* observation.
and unless we become a police state (in an appropriate metaphorical sense), we won't be able to get by with only users with thin skins.
You blame people who have a problem with Lir and his ilk on "users with thin skins," and I think *that attitude* is a problem. Plenty of users (and potential users) have plenty thick skins but zero tolerance for bullshit.
Wikipedia needs to reduce its tolerance for bullshit. This doesn't require being a police state; it *does* require ultimate, clear sanctions enforced as and when needed. This will then rebuild something we once had more of: mutual respect and moral authority on the basis of our engaging in a project the principles upon which we agree and will defend.
This is what I think Jimbo can help us regain.
If you agree, I'm sure he'd appreciate your support.
Luckily, we don't have to; trolls or no trolls, we still get more and more users all the time.
And they will leave faster and faster if the place is infested with trolls and in the hands of the crowd that thinks there *really are* no rules.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Ah, the voice of arrogance. I mean, isn't Larry always *obviously* right? Anybody that disagrees with him is either an ideologue or an idiot, and that's how it'll always be.
Boy, have a look in the mirror, dude.
Well, let's see. I don't merely insist that my opinions are obvious when they're challenged, and I don't accuse those that disagree with me of being blinded by ideology or being idiots. If you want to return my insults with insults, then I'm sure that you can find some that actually fit.
But it wasn't fair to bring your sig into the discussion. I'm letting my personal feelings slip in here again. My apologies.
Thanks.
It wasn't an insult, anyway. When someone insults you and you tell him to "look in the mirror," it can mean, "takes one to know one," which would be an insult, but it can and probably more often means, as the song says, "Afore you 'cuze me, take a look at yoursel'," which isn't to make any particular accusation.
Anyway, let's stop this mutual insulting.
You may have the last word if you want it--I really have to get back to work.
Larry