The problem is that Wikipedia, for better or worse, has an inquisitorial system, with all the dangers such a system presents. We need to limit our investigations to harmful activities. Harmful activities cause harm, observable trouble. An administrator who uses open proxies but does not engage in vandalism or sockpuppetry is not producing observable trouble.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Gabe Johnson [mailto:gjzilla@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 01:28 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room
On 6/17/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
What I said is that all productive and trusted users are exempt from inquisition, witch hunts, to put it bluntly.
Fred
One man's "witch hunt" is another man's "this person is doing something legitimately wrong and I no longer trust him". ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
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 6/17/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is that Wikipedia, for better or worse, has an inquisitorial system, with all the dangers such a system presents. We need to limit our investigations to harmful activities. Harmful activities cause harm, observable trouble. An administrator who uses open proxies but does not engage in vandalism or sockpuppetry is not producing observable trouble.
Fred
Fred, a banned user could cause a lot of trouble if he got elected to ArbCom using open proxies and a concocted admin account, built up easily by doing lots of vandalism reverting. There has to be some minimal accountability with admins, in part because they can be elected to these positions, and in part because they can cause big problems even without these extra powers.
The concern with CW was in part the use of proxies, in part the low level of content contribution, and in part his/her unwillingness to explain, even by e-mail, why s/he was using open proxies. It's this last point that has attracted a lot of the opposition on the RfA. All in all, it added up to a worrying picture.
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The concern with CW was in part the use of proxies, in part the low level of content contribution, and in part his/her unwillingness to explain, even by e-mail, why s/he was using open proxies. It's this last point that has attracted a lot of the opposition on the RfA. All in all, it added up to a worrying picture.
Oh. I didn't see much worrying except for the TOR thing. Was he/she asked by e-mail to explain the issue?
Also, you're talking about her/him in the past tense. Is the RfA over and done with then?
Michel
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/17/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is that Wikipedia, for better or worse, has an inquisitorial system, with all the dangers such a system presents. We need to limit our investigations to harmful activities. Harmful activities cause harm, observable trouble. An administrator who uses open proxies but does not engage in vandalism or sockpuppetry is not producing observable trouble.
Fred
Fred, a banned user could cause a lot of trouble if he got elected to ArbCom using open proxies and a concocted admin account, built up easily by doing lots of vandalism reverting. There has to be some minimal accountability with admins, in part because they can be elected to these positions, and in part because they can cause big problems even without these extra powers.
"Could" is what paranoia is built on. How many such banned users have ever been elected to Arbcom? How many have even come close? Since you say that such a person would build up his account with lots of vandalism reverting, maybe the rule should be that a person with too much (whatever too much is) vandalism reverting should not be eligible for Arbcom because they would have a clear prosecutorial bias. At least such activity would be more revealing than simply using an open proxy for ordinary edits.
The concern with CW was in part the use of proxies, in part the low level of content contribution, and in part his/her unwillingness to explain, even by e-mail, why s/he was using open proxies. It's this last point that has attracted a lot of the opposition on the RfA. All in all, it added up to a worrying picture.
Sometimes when you begin by accusing someone of wrongdoing, and everybody starts shouting "WHY?" in her ear, clamming up is the preferred strategy. One possible parallel in US law is Miranda rights.
Ec
On 6/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/17/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is that Wikipedia, for better or worse, has an inquisitorial system, with all the dangers such a system presents. We need to limit our investigations to harmful activities. Harmful activities cause harm, observable trouble. An administrator who uses open proxies but does not engage in vandalism or sockpuppetry is not producing observable trouble.
Fred
Fred, a banned user could cause a lot of trouble if he got elected to ArbCom using open proxies and a concocted admin account, built up easily by doing lots of vandalism reverting. There has to be some minimal accountability with admins, in part because they can be elected to these positions, and in part because they can cause big problems even without these extra powers.
"Could" is what paranoia is built on. How many such banned users have ever been elected to Arbcom? How many have even come close? Since you say that such a person would build up his account with lots of vandalism reverting, maybe the rule should be that a person with too much (whatever too much is) vandalism reverting should not be eligible for Arbcom because they would have a clear prosecutorial bias. At least such activity would be more revealing than simply using an open proxy for ordinary edits.
Yes. A vandalism-fighter would be qualified for/need adminship, but not oversight, checkuser, or even arguably bureaucratship. ~~~~
The concern with CW was in part the use of proxies, in part the low level of content contribution, and in part his/her unwillingness to explain, even by e-mail, why s/he was using open proxies. It's this last point that has attracted a lot of the opposition on the RfA. All in all, it added up to a worrying picture.
Sometimes when you begin by accusing someone of wrongdoing, and everybody starts shouting "WHY?" in her ear, clamming up is the preferred strategy. One possible parallel in US law is Miranda rights.
Ec
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Fred, a banned user could cause a lot of trouble if he got elected to ArbCom using open proxies and a concocted admin account, built up easily by doing lots of vandalism reverting. There has to be some minimal accountability with admins, in part because they can be elected to these positions, and in part because they can cause big problems even without these extra powers.
And so could an UN-banned user. The current program doesn't strike me as being accountability per se. Everybody being accountable to one group of admins is inadequate.
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
Actually, I believe the phrase you were looking for is "The Cabal (tm)". But I think Dan Tobias is right, and that it functions more like a clique. And as for its membership: please. Anyone who has followed this and its related crises over the past months can provide a quite precise set of names.
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
Actually, I believe the phrase you were looking for is "The Cabal (tm)". But I think Dan Tobias is right, and that it functions more like a clique. And as for its membership: please. Anyone who has followed this and its related crises over the past months can provide a quite precise set of names.
So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
The impression apparently comes from the timing of your revelation.
- d.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
The impression apparently comes from the timing of your revelation.
Yes, I've gathered that, but what has still not yet been forthcoming is the alleged purpose or benefit The Cabal (tm) would gain from this. The only rationale I've heard so far is that I was somehow trying to stop new admins from being created, but my actual "voting" record on RFAs shows that to be specious, and in any event, it would hardly slow down their 1.5 new admin/day creation rate, unless you assume a huge number of admin candidates are using proxies (which I think is highly unlikely).
Again, what nefarious purpose is served by this?
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
The impression apparently comes from the timing of your revelation.
Yes, I've gathered that, but what has still not yet been forthcoming is the alleged purpose or benefit The Cabal (tm) would gain from this. The only rationale I've heard so far is that I was somehow trying to stop new admins from being created, but my actual "voting" record on RFAs shows that to be specious, and in any event, it would hardly slow down their 1.5 new admin/day creation rate, unless you assume a huge number of admin candidates are using proxies (which I think is highly unlikely).
Again, what nefarious purpose is served by this?
Personally, I still AGF regarding your actions here.
The key problem is that what you did gives a very strong appearance of having been an intentional attack to torpedo the RFA.
In many positions of responsibility, half of the job is not just avoiding actual impropriety, it's avoiding any appearance of it. People put power into positions and trust that it's being used in ways that everyone agrees are helpful to the community and not abusive of it.
Whether people think that actions are abusive largely depends in real life on perceptions and the public PR face of things rather than actual factual malfeasance. It's unfortunately possible to be a perfectly honorable person and put your foot in it so badly that nobody will ever trust you with a position of responsibility again. It's also unfortunately possible to have a squeaky clean public face and be corrupt in fact.
What you did put the critics in a position where they could, in their view of Wikipedia, conclude that you torpedoed a RFA with information widely considered to be confidential and private, and conclude that you did so on purpose as part of the great abusive admin cabal.
Your reactions since then have been defensible from the "I didn't really do anything wrong" factual point of view. They're disasterous from the "appearance of wrong" point of view. You're arguing with the critics in a manner that both engages and enrages them. This is, from a PR perspective, close to the absolute worst thing you could be doing. Bald silence would be better.
I AGF on the factual questions of an intentional hostile act to torpedo an RFA, and a privacy violation of CU data.
I can't AGF on the PR aspects of this. You can fix it, but you have a hole to dig out of. I think it's reasonable to ask that CUs, Arbcom members, foundation board members, and the like act in a more PR-aware manner than you have to date regarding this incident.
I would greatly regret coming to a conclusion that we can't trust you, in the wider community sense, with the Cu power merely because you turned a goof into a PR disaster. But that issue is now legitimately on the table. This RFA has become a double-edged microscope, as it were.
Please stop blowing off the gadfly critics; either don't talk to them or answer their questions calmly and without firing back. Please also engage the reasonable critics here and on-wiki and address the criticisms.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
The impression apparently comes from the timing of your revelation.
Yes, I've gathered that, but what has still not yet been forthcoming is the alleged purpose or benefit The Cabal (tm) would gain from this. The only rationale I've heard so far is that I was somehow trying to stop new admins from being created, but my actual "voting" record on RFAs shows that to be specious, and in any event, it would hardly slow down their 1.5 new admin/day creation rate, unless you assume a huge number of admin candidates are using proxies (which I think is highly unlikely).
Again, what nefarious purpose is served by this?
on 6/18/07 4:16 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I still AGF regarding your actions here.
The key problem is that what you did gives a very strong appearance of having been an intentional attack to torpedo the RFA.
In many positions of responsibility, half of the job is not just avoiding actual impropriety, it's avoiding any appearance of it. People put power into positions and trust that it's being used in ways that everyone agrees are helpful to the community and not abusive of it.
Whether people think that actions are abusive largely depends in real life on perceptions and the public PR face of things rather than actual factual malfeasance. It's unfortunately possible to be a perfectly honorable person and put your foot in it so badly that nobody will ever trust you with a position of responsibility again. It's also unfortunately possible to have a squeaky clean public face and be corrupt in fact.
What you did put the critics in a position where they could, in their view of Wikipedia, conclude that you torpedoed a RFA with information widely considered to be confidential and private, and conclude that you did so on purpose as part of the great abusive admin cabal.
Your reactions since then have been defensible from the "I didn't really do anything wrong" factual point of view. They're disasterous from the "appearance of wrong" point of view. You're arguing with the critics in a manner that both engages and enrages them. This is, from a PR perspective, close to the absolute worst thing you could be doing. Bald silence would be better.
I AGF on the factual questions of an intentional hostile act to torpedo an RFA, and a privacy violation of CU data.
I can't AGF on the PR aspects of this. You can fix it, but you have a hole to dig out of. I think it's reasonable to ask that CUs, Arbcom members, foundation board members, and the like act in a more PR-aware manner than you have to date regarding this incident.
I would greatly regret coming to a conclusion that we can't trust you, in the wider community sense, with the Cu power merely because you turned a goof into a PR disaster. But that issue is now legitimately on the table. This RFA has become a double-edged microscope, as it were.
Please stop blowing off the gadfly critics; either don't talk to them or answer their questions calmly and without firing back. Please also engage the reasonable critics here and on-wiki and address the criticisms.
My complements to you, George - nicely said.
Marc
On 18/06/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
My complements to you, George - nicely said.
Amen to that.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
Actually, I believe the phrase you were looking for is "The Cabal (tm)". But I think Dan Tobias is right, and that it functions more like a clique. And as for its membership: please. Anyone who has followed this and its related crises over the past months can provide a quite precise set of names.
So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
CW is a loose cannon, you can't count on her to always take your side in the issue, because even if you get along with her, she'll tell you if she thinks you're acting rotten. She might be an issue when groups of admins gang up on editors who are accusing admins of abusing their powers.
But, no, the cabal doesn't discuss its plans with peons--it wouldn't be the cabal if it did, would it? I don't belong to any cabals, so I may not have all my cabal facts straight. I do read Singer, though.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
Actually, I believe the phrase you were looking for is "The Cabal (tm)". But I think Dan Tobias is right, and that it functions more like a clique. And as for its membership: please. Anyone who has followed this and its related crises over the past months can provide a quite precise set of names.
So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
CW is a loose cannon, you can't count on her to always take your side in the issue, because even if you get along with her, she'll tell you if she thinks you're acting rotten. She might be an issue when groups of admins gang up on editors who are accusing admins of abusing their powers.
Well, at least that's a reason, but huh? Why would I expect this any more from CW than from any other of the 10 new admins created each week? In fact, I would expect it less from CW than from most of the others, since CW appears to do little other than vandal reverting, and avoids almost all controversy, or even stating any opinions.
I appreciate your at least attempting to provide a rationale, but seriously, can't you see how farfetched this whole thing is?
But, no, the cabal doesn't discuss its plans with peons--it wouldn't be the cabal if it did, would it? I don't belong to any cabals, so I may not have all my cabal facts straight. I do read Singer, though.
Peter Singer, the philosopher and founder of the Great Ape Project? Isaac Bashevis Singer, Nobel-prize winning author?
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
Actually, I believe the phrase you were looking for is "The Cabal (tm)". But I think Dan Tobias is right, and that it functions more like a clique. And as for its membership: please. Anyone who has followed this and its related crises over the past months can provide a quite precise set of names.
So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
CW is a loose cannon, you can't count on her to always take your side in the issue, because even if you get along with her, she'll tell you if she thinks you're acting rotten. She might be an issue when groups of admins gang up on editors who are accusing admins of abusing their powers.
Well, at least that's a reason, but huh? Why would I expect this any more from CW than from any other of the 10 new admins created each week? In fact, I would expect it less from CW than from most of the others, since CW appears to do little other than vandal reverting, and avoids almost all controversy, or even stating any opinions.
I appreciate your at least attempting to provide a rationale, but seriously, can't you see how farfetched this whole thing is?
Absolutely.
But, no, the cabal doesn't discuss its plans with peons--it wouldn't be the cabal if it did, would it? I don't belong to any cabals, so I may not have all my cabal facts straight. I do read Singer, though.
Peter Singer, the philosopher and founder of the Great Ape Project? Isaac Bashevis Singer, Nobel-prize winning author?
Both. Hellaciously incredible guess. I may have to give more credit to YOUR wild speculations in the future.
KP
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Well, at least that's a reason, but huh? Why would I expect this any more from CW than from any other of the 10 new admins created each week? In fact, I would expect it less from CW than from most of the others, since CW appears to do little other than vandal reverting, and avoids almost all controversy, or even stating any opinions.
Impressive number of mailing list posts from someone who does that.
G'day The Mangoe,
Actually, I believe the phrase you were looking for is "The Cabal (tm)". But I think Dan Tobias is right, and that it functions more like a clique. And as for its membership: please. Anyone who has followed this and its related crises over the past months can provide a quite precise set of names.
Do, please, go on ...
Slim Virgin wrote:
The concern with CW was in part the use of proxies, in part the low level of content contribution, and in part his/her unwillingness to explain, even by e-mail, why s/he was using open proxies. It's this last point that has attracted a lot of the opposition on the RfA. All in all, it added up to a worrying picture.
Maybe if that concern had been voiced at an earlier stage, before CW arrived at RFA, the appearance of "putting the boot in" could have been avoided.
I note that I still have no answer as to why, if so many CheckUser people were already aware that CW was appearing on the list of people using Open Proxies, nobody had seen fit to quietly inquire as to what was going on.
True enough, CW had still not answered when I last checked, but maybe this is natural given the tone and venue of the question...
The one actual example of true harm done to WP by false credentials was not accomplished by technology. but by what is euphemistically termed social engineering: fraud on one side, credulity on the other. DGG
On 6/18/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
The concern with CW was in part the use of proxies, in part the low level of content contribution, and in part his/her unwillingness to explain, even by e-mail, why s/he was using open proxies. It's this last point that has attracted a lot of the opposition on the RfA. All in all, it added up to a worrying picture.
Maybe if that concern had been voiced at an earlier stage, before CW arrived at RFA, the appearance of "putting the boot in" could have been avoided.
I note that I still have no answer as to why, if so many CheckUser people were already aware that CW was appearing on the list of people using Open Proxies, nobody had seen fit to quietly inquire as to what was going on.
True enough, CW had still not answered when I last checked, but maybe this is natural given the tone and venue of the question... -- Phil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/the-elephant-in-the-room-tf3936475.html#a11170905 Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
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 6/18/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The one actual example of true harm done to WP by false credentials was not accomplished by technology. but by what is euphemistically termed social engineering: fraud on one side, credulity on the other. DGG
David, as a matter of interest, how do you know this? That is, how do you know there has only been one example of true harm done to WP by false credentials?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
I see NOP has been revised at both meta and en. Is the point now moot?
JodyB
- -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Slim Virgin Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:18 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room
On 6/18/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The one actual example of true harm done to WP by false credentials was not accomplished by technology. but by what is euphemistically termed social engineering: fraud on one side, credulity on the other. DGG
David, as a matter of interest, how do you know this? That is, how do you know there has only been one example of true harm done to WP by false credentials?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
J. Bryant Evans wrote:
I see NOP has been revised at both meta and en. Is the point now moot?
There remains the drive-by damage that was caused on one person's RfA, where a number of votes were cast on the basis that she had violated policy.
Ec
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/18/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The one actual example of true harm done to WP by false credentials was not accomplished by technology. but by what is euphemistically termed social engineering: fraud on one side, credulity on the other. DGG
David, as a matter of interest, how do you know this? That is, how do you know there has only been one example of true harm done to WP by false credentials?
You're asking him to prove a negative. If he believes that there are no other examples he can keep looking from now till doomsday and not find any. That's why the burden of proof is on those who claim that they exist. If you know that they exist don't be coy about it.
Ec
Quite right. I should have said, the only public example where I think real harm was done. And the harm that was done was the loss of confidence in Jimbo. But maybe that is nort really harm, bbut a good development at this stage.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The one actual example of true harm done to WP by false credentials was not accomplished by technology. but by what is euphemistically termed social engineering: fraud on one side, credulity on the other. DGG
David, as a matter of interest, how do you know this? That is, how do you know there has only been one example of true harm done to WP by false credentials?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Who lost confidence in Jimbo? AFAIK, Jimbo lost confidence in Essjay, and apologised for AGF'ing at first.
-Salaskan
2007/6/20, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Quite right. I should have said, the only public example where I think real harm was done. And the harm that was done was the loss of confidence in Jimbo. But maybe that is nort really harm, bbut a good development at this stage.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The one actual example of true harm done to WP by false credentials was not accomplished by technology. but by what is euphemistically termed social engineering: fraud on one side, credulity on the other. DGG
David, as a matter of interest, how do you know this? That is, how do you know there has only been one example of true harm done to WP by false credentials?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l