"Even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what?" Well, here's why that thinking might be dangerous: most banned editors are banned for disruptively arguing their POV, nor their POV. If we ban accounts on the basis of POVs like already banned editors, that would be a severe error, and compromise our neutrality, our effectiveness, and our ability to criticize ourselves.
I'd let this go - I don't normally write in - but it seems that too many people have begun believing that 'sounding like' people who are dangerous for *other reasons *is in itself reason for banning. That's just happened at AN/I, for example which is why I've broken the rules I've set myself and written in. We've got to be careful to avoid false positives in our identification.
I agree with Joshua on the effectiveness of textual analysis to catch sockpuppets, so don't make this remark about that. It isn't. It's about how this method must not appear to be used to scotch criticism of our own on-WP behavior.
RR
Quoting joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Featured%20editors%3F&In-Reply-To=20071112103004.GB16056%40psi.co.at> *Mon Nov 12 14:16:40 UTC 2007*
Quoting Raphael Wegmann <wegmann at psi.co.at>:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:41:21PM -0500, joshua.zelinsky at yale.eduwrote:
Quoting Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at >:
Guy Chapman aka JzG schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned* > abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost > daily basis.
And what kind of magic is involved in finding those socks? In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other
methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
What are those "other methods"? According to WP:SOCK "similarities in interests and editing style" might help to detect sockpuppets. If this is the case, how can we make sure, that we do not block different editors, who happen to share the same POV? Does it matter at all since we might call them as well meatpuppets? How do we prevent admins from blocking not a vandal but a certain POV?
Furthermore, even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what? In order for a POV to look similar to a blocked editor it generally needs to be extreme and with no caring for NPOV. So even if such blocks were occasionally occurring we aren't losing much. Consider for example, some socks of Jason Gastrich we've blocked. At least one of those I think wasn't a Gastrich sock, but it was interested in pretty close to the same thing; spamming and promoting Louisiana Baptist University and whitewashing the article. We didn't lose much for blocking it. Note incidentally, that this isn't the sort of evidence we are talking about above- that sort is almost never wrong.
on 11/12/07 1:23 PM, Relata Refero at refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
"Even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what?" Well, here's why that thinking might be dangerous: most banned editors are banned for disruptively arguing their POV, nor their POV. If we ban accounts on the basis of POVs like already banned editors, that would be a severe error, and compromise our neutrality, our effectiveness, and our ability to criticize ourselves.
I'd let this go - I don't normally write in - but it seems that too many people have begun believing that 'sounding like' people who are dangerous for *other reasons *is in itself reason for banning. That's just happened at AN/I, for example which is why I've broken the rules I've set myself and written in. We've got to be careful to avoid false positives in our identification.
I agree with Joshua on the effectiveness of textual analysis to catch sockpuppets, so don't make this remark about that. It isn't. It's about how this method must not appear to be used to scotch criticism of our own on-WP behavior.
This is good input, Relata. I wish you would write in more often.
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
Quoting joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Featured%20editors%3F &In-Reply-To=20071112103004.GB16056%40psi.co.at> *Mon Nov 12 14:16:40 UTC 2007*
Quoting Raphael Wegmann <wegmann at psi.co.at>:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:41:21PM -0500, joshua.zelinsky at yale.eduwrote:
Quoting Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at >:
Guy Chapman aka JzG schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>> No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned* >> abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost >> daily basis.
> And what kind of magic is involved in finding those socks? > In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other
methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
What are those "other methods"? According to WP:SOCK "similarities in interests and editing style" might help to detect sockpuppets. If this is the case, how can we make sure, that we do not block different editors, who happen to share the same POV? Does it matter at all since we might call them as well meatpuppets? How do we prevent admins from blocking not a vandal but a certain POV?
Furthermore, even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what? In order for a POV to look similar to a blocked editor it generally needs to be extreme and with no caring for NPOV. So even if such blocks were occasionally occurring we aren't losing much. Consider for example, some socks of Jason Gastrich we've blocked. At least one of those I think wasn't a Gastrich sock, but it was interested in pretty close to the same thing; spamming and promoting Louisiana Baptist University and whitewashing the article. We didn't lose much for blocking it. Note incidentally, that this isn't the sort of evidence we are talking about above- that sort is almost never wrong.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:53:08 +0530, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
"Even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what?" Well, here's why that thinking might be dangerous: most banned editors are banned for disruptively arguing their POV, nor their POV. If we ban accounts on the basis of POVs like already banned editors, that would be a severe error, and compromise our neutrality, our effectiveness, and our ability to criticize ourselves.
There's some truth in this, but I don't see much evidence that people are being actively banned just for holding a POV, only for disruptively asserting it. I guess our tolerance for pedophilia activism and holocaust denial is pretty low, but the average holocaust denier engages in unambiguously banworthy editing (they are usually not too subtle in their biases).
Guy (JzG)
On 13/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
There's some truth in this, but I don't see much evidence that people are being actively banned just for holding a POV, only for disruptively asserting it. I guess our tolerance for pedophilia activism and holocaust denial is pretty low, but the average holocaust denier engages in unambiguously banworthy editing (they are usually not too subtle in their biases).
The problem is not the POV per se, it's the manner of POV-pushing. What we see is that POV-pushers from both fields just seem not to know how to behave like civilised humans in practice, not just theory. So the POV turns out to actually be a pretty reliable guide to "trouble ahead." Which is a bit of a pity for the pursuit of the purest of NPOV, though only about this much: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Boohoo
-d.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:48:45 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(a characteristically sane post plus...)
Amazing how often Uncyclopedia hits the mark. I also like http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:British
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:39:40PM +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:53:08 +0530, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
"Even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what?" Well, here's why that thinking might be dangerous: most banned editors are banned for disruptively arguing their POV, nor their POV. If we ban accounts on the basis of POVs like already banned editors, that would be a severe error, and compromise our neutrality, our effectiveness, and our ability to criticize ourselves.
There's some truth in this, but I don't see much evidence that people are being actively banned just for holding a POV, only for disruptively asserting it. I guess our tolerance for pedophilia activism and holocaust denial is pretty low, but the average holocaust denier engages in unambiguously banworthy editing (they are usually not too subtle in their biases).
Apart from invoking Godwin's law, I don't think your Reductio ad Nazium argument helps the discussion. No matter how outrageous the POV is, nobody should be banned for merely holding it.
We could all do with a bit more AGF here. Some people give a very good impression of assuming that any removal of any link is motivated by a desire to censor legitimate criticism. Some admins think that this makes the people who stir up such drama *evil*. I don't think either of these views is productive. But neither do I think we should tolerate arguments based on points of non-existent principle (e.g. free speech) when an explanation has been made in pragmatic and specific terms (e.g. offsite harassment, banned users advocating content changes in offsite forums). Wikipedia is not a free speech zone and not anarchy either.
I remember an issue, where the main argument, which was solely based on this non-existent principle (free speech), trumped all explanations, which had been made in pragmatic and specific terms (e.g. onsite bigotry, vote stacking in offsite forums).
br
Quoting Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:39:40PM +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:53:08 +0530, "Relata Refero" refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
"Even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what?" Well, here's why that thinking might be dangerous: most banned editors are banned for disruptively arguing their POV, nor their POV. If we ban accounts on the basis of POVs like already banned editors, that would be a severe
error, and
compromise our neutrality, our effectiveness, and our ability to criticize ourselves.
There's some truth in this, but I don't see much evidence that people are being actively banned just for holding a POV, only for disruptively asserting it. I guess our tolerance for pedophilia activism and holocaust denial is pretty low, but the average holocaust denier engages in unambiguously banworthy editing (they are usually not too subtle in their biases).
Apart from invoking Godwin's law, I don't think your Reductio ad Nazium argument helps the discussion. No matter how outrageous the POV is, nobody should be banned for merely holding it.
This isn't a Godwin's law situation. He didn't compare people to Nazis and he didn't say that their POV was somehow intrinsically less worthy of respect. The above is an empirical remark. Please don't distort what people are saying.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:46:55 +0100, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
"Even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what?" Well, here's why that thinking might be dangerous: most banned editors are banned for disruptively arguing their POV, nor their POV. If we ban accounts on the basis of POVs like already banned editors, that would be a severe error, and compromise our neutrality, our effectiveness, and our ability to criticize ourselves.
There's some truth in this, but I don't see much evidence that people are being actively banned just for holding a POV, only for disruptively asserting it. I guess our tolerance for pedophilia activism and holocaust denial is pretty low, but the average holocaust denier engages in unambiguously banworthy editing (they are usually not too subtle in their biases).
Apart from invoking Godwin's law, I don't think your Reductio ad Nazium argument helps the discussion. No matter how outrageous the POV is, nobody should be banned for merely holding it.
Raphael, you are really starting to cause me to question whether you have the slightest idea what you are talking about. My comment was a serious one founded on a real and present issue with the encyclopaedia.
See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Keltik31
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gas_chamber&diff=prev&...
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
I remember an issue, where the main argument, which was solely based on this non-existent principle (free speech), trumped all explanations, which had been made in pragmatic and specific terms (e.g. onsite bigotry, vote stacking in offsite forums).
No, you remember an example where there was a conflict between a sincerely expressed desire to avoid offence to Muslim editors, with the long-standing that Wikipedia is not censored (in the sense of bowdlerised). We do practice self-censorship - WP:BLP is the most prominent example of this, and one I'd hate to drop - but we do not censor content to accommodate differing religious or cultural mores.
And actually I think you'll find that I was all for linking rather than displaying those images. Not that this is relevant.
Guy (JzG)