On 29 Jul 2007 at 09:05:12 -0400, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Dan Tobias wrote:
...why has Slim's entire clique always been so desperate to suppress all mention of it? This seems to have been a primary motive of the whole idiotic "attack site link" policy, for instance.
I believe it's because the discussion is held as unseemly and hurtful.
But one has to ask just how long Slim should be enabled by her friends to take her her "damsel in distress" position, where her tender, delicate sensibilities are being cruelly assaulted by all those evil trolls and attackers. She's not a weak, defenseless, lowly person here... she's one of the most prominent and powerful editors and administrators on Wikipedia, and has a whole clique surrounding her that wields a huge degree of power and influence over the whole site. As such, she's arguably in the sort of position where one must develop a thick skin about criticism. Critics won't always be polite, and reasonable, and civil, and fair... especially when they're doing their criticism over on other sites that play by different rules from ours. But if you resort to heavyhanded tactics to try to suppress all mention of the critics and criticisms, you just surrender the moral high ground and make yourself and your organization look bad.
A few articles up from the one about Wikipedia and Slim on Slashdot, there's one about the New Zealand legislature (or parliament, or whatever the heck they have over there) passing rules banning journalists from using images of the legislators in session in contexts that ridicule the legislature. Maybe that country has its own local versions of John Stewart that like using politicians' own speeches and the like to make fun of them, and that apparently hurt somebody's feelings over there. Criticizing the government is fine in a free country... but can't those critics be *fair* and *civil* about it? Showing a legislator caught on camera picking his nose, in order to sneer at him, is just *unfair*, and should be suppressed! However, these rules are backfiring on them... I hear that Jon Stewart even did a segment making fun of them for it... since he's in the U.S., they can't do any more about it than Wikipedia's clique can do about Slashdot commenters it dislikes.
A few years ago, Singapore's government dealt with critics who claimed that the government was muzzling criticism via litigation... by suing the critics for libel! That's the sort of thing that makes one a laughingstock worldwide. Having the Wikipedia clique gang up to suppress people who talk about how Wikipedia has a clique that gangs up on people is right in that vein.
It's ironic that, just a few months ago, I was one of the most rabid pro-Wikipedia, anti-critic people around. Very ironically, what started turning things around for me was the fact that I liked to laugh at the critics and their sites... at one point I frequently called Wikipedia Review "the WikiWhiners" (something that got me temporarily banned from that site, where I'd registered an account for the purpose of responding to the attacks and criticisms they were making about me). But to criticize the critics, and make fun of them, it was useful to be able to link to what I was criticizing, like "See [link]... look at the silly stuff they're saying now!" So the attack-site link ban was troublesome to me... and when I spoke up against it, it brought to my attention the seamy underbelly of the Wikipedia clique and how it stood together in "solidarity" to circle its wagons against anybody who went against it. That was an eye- opener, and though I still strongly disagree with most of the ideology of the "attack sites", I now have much more sympathy for them than I did before.
on 7/29/07 3:42 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 29 Jul 2007 at 09:05:12 -0400, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Dan Tobias wrote:
...why has Slim's entire clique always been so desperate to suppress all mention of it? This seems to have been a primary motive of the whole idiotic "attack site link" policy, for instance.
I believe it's because the discussion is held as unseemly and hurtful.
But one has to ask just how long Slim should be enabled by her friends to take her her "damsel in distress" position, where her tender, delicate sensibilities are being cruelly assaulted by all those evil trolls and attackers. She's not a weak, defenseless, lowly person here... she's one of the most prominent and powerful editors and administrators on Wikipedia, and has a whole clique surrounding her that wields a huge degree of power and influence over the whole site. As such, she's arguably in the sort of position where one must develop a thick skin about criticism. Critics won't always be polite, and reasonable, and civil, and fair... especially when they're doing their criticism over on other sites that play by different rules from ours. But if you resort to heavyhanded tactics to try to suppress all mention of the critics and criticisms, you just surrender the moral high ground and make yourself and your organization look bad.
A few articles up from the one about Wikipedia and Slim on Slashdot, there's one about the New Zealand legislature (or parliament, or whatever the heck they have over there) passing rules banning journalists from using images of the legislators in session in contexts that ridicule the legislature. Maybe that country has its own local versions of John Stewart that like using politicians' own speeches and the like to make fun of them, and that apparently hurt somebody's feelings over there. Criticizing the government is fine in a free country... but can't those critics be *fair* and *civil* about it? Showing a legislator caught on camera picking his nose, in order to sneer at him, is just *unfair*, and should be suppressed! However, these rules are backfiring on them... I hear that Jon Stewart even did a segment making fun of them for it... since he's in the U.S., they can't do any more about it than Wikipedia's clique can do about Slashdot commenters it dislikes.
A few years ago, Singapore's government dealt with critics who claimed that the government was muzzling criticism via litigation... by suing the critics for libel! That's the sort of thing that makes one a laughingstock worldwide. Having the Wikipedia clique gang up to suppress people who talk about how Wikipedia has a clique that gangs up on people is right in that vein.
It's ironic that, just a few months ago, I was one of the most rabid pro-Wikipedia, anti-critic people around. Very ironically, what started turning things around for me was the fact that I liked to laugh at the critics and their sites... at one point I frequently called Wikipedia Review "the WikiWhiners" (something that got me temporarily banned from that site, where I'd registered an account for the purpose of responding to the attacks and criticisms they were making about me). But to criticize the critics, and make fun of them, it was useful to be able to link to what I was criticizing, like "See [link]... look at the silly stuff they're saying now!" So the attack-site link ban was troublesome to me... and when I spoke up against it, it brought to my attention the seamy underbelly of the Wikipedia clique and how it stood together in "solidarity" to circle its wagons against anybody who went against it. That was an eye- opener, and though I still strongly disagree with most of the ideology of the "attack sites", I now have much more sympathy for them than I did before.
Actually, the term "to criticize" is a neutral one; basically it means to render an opinion, an evaluation, of something.
And, the effect this criticism has on the person, or work, being criticized depends a great deal on how confident that person, or producers of that work, are in the true quality of what's being criticized. And, what effect this criticism will have on others' perception of what's being criticized.
Important, also, is the credibility of the persons doing the criticizing. Some very helpful, constructive, input can result from a well-respected critic.
In the end, if we are constantly defending and shielding our work from criticism, we must feel it is weak enough to need defending with those shields - and cannot stand or survive on its own.
In the final analysis, the only critic that should matter is the audience: those persons who are here to make positive, constructive use of our work. Their input (criticism) is the most valuable.
Marc Riddell