Okee dokee, here are some of the violations I found in the recent unpleasantness. Some are more important than others, and some are stronger cases than others. But in no particular order, and in an ad hoc format, here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours:
First, not a violation, but Timwi specifically asked about policies encouraging additions and discouraging deletions. To clarify, I didn't mean a hard-and-fast rule-- of course some deletions are good and some additions are bad. But it's a theme I picked up a few times on various newbie and policy pages. I'll see if I can find the references again.
... OK, here are some:
. the advice to "Be bold in updating pages" and the page thereof seem to favor additions. . "Editing Policy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AEditing_policy) emphasizes additions over deletions throughout the text. The section "On editing styles" discourages deletions without preserving what's deleted plus comments why it was deleted. It says "whatever you do, try to preserve information". . on "Wikiquette", it says "Avoid reverting and deleting" and "Amend, edit, discuss." . there is a general desire to end up with content that is the superset of all relevant viewpoints.
---------
Now, the violations, with the requested complete quoting and explanation:
1) On "Blocking policy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy), it lists specifically when sysops are permitted to block users. Oberiko violated this when s/he blocked me, since none of the reasons applied.
2) On "How to revert a page to an earlier version" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AHow_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_...), the section "Explain reverts" details just that policy. It says that one of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is "Always explain your reverts" (though that does not show up on the actual policy and guidelines page). This was violated by Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang for most of the times they reverted my addition.
3) On "Dealing with vandalism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADealing_with_vandalism), it defines vandalism: "Vandalism is bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." The page goes on to list examples of non-vandalism, and types of vandalism. Texture repeatedly called my addition vandalism, which it clearly is not according to this page. Even after I called him on it, and pointed him to this page, he didn't answer my charge, and persisted in calling my text "vandalism". I don't see how he could be acting in good faith here. Texture then used the "vandalism" charge to justify his other policy-violating actions, such as deleting without explanation, or calling his deletion "minor".
4) I can't remember where I originally saw this, but on "Minor edit" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMinor_edit) it says that "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text." (third paragraph) Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang all marked their deletions as "minor", which violates the quoted policy twice. I don't know why they did this; you experienced users would know the benefit of it better than I do.
5) On "Policies and Guidelines" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicies_and_guidelines) under "Key Policies":
a) "1) Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically." Texture and Oberiko were not fair or sympathetic toward my view, and enforced their own POV my removing my edit that had reduced the POV-ness (as others besides me have pointed out).
b) "4) Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia etiquette, Dispute resolution." Nothing Texture or Oberiko did was respectful to me; see my user page and the Reagan history page for examples.
6) On "Policies and Guidelines", under "Specific guidelines to consider":
a) "Please do not bite the newcomers", and the page linked to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APlease_do_not_bite_the_newcomers). Texture and Oberiko violated this in a few ways, some of which are listed on the page linked to ("understand newcomers' value...", "try not to make hostile comments...", "assume good faith", arguably others).
b) "Avoid blanket statements" The sentence I was appending to (and which Texture and Oberiko reverted to) is a blanket statement, if we take "United States" to mean the citizens of the United States.
7) On "Avoiding common mistakes" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAvoiding_common_mistakes):
a) "Deleting useful content. Just because something is written poorly doesn't mean it lacks a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. ... [long paragraph]" b) "Deleting biased content. Biased content can be useful content (see above). Remove the bias and keep the content." c) "Deleting without justifying. Except in the most obvious cases, deleting anything nontrivial requires some words of justification in the edit "Summary" or on the talk page. If the justification is presented in the Talk page, it's sufficient to write "See talk" in the edit summary box." ----- All of these were violated by Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang when they deleted my addition.
8) On "Wikiquette" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiquette), under "Principles of Wikipedia etiquette":
a) "Assume the best about people whenever possible." Texture and Oberiko assumed I was malicious (or so they said; I think they were just being partisan). b) "Avoid reverting and deleting" and "Amend, edit, discuss." Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang reverted and deleted without discussion. c) "Be polite." Examples of their impoliteness are on my talk page, in edit summaries, and in the reason Oberiko gave for blocking me. d) "Don't ignore questions." Questions I asked in edit summaries and on Texture's talk page were ignored by Texture, which I see s/he's done elsewhere too.
--------------------------------------------------
Phew. Hope that helps. I'm feeling pretty glazed now. I'll catch up with you all later.
Best, James ............................................................................ James Marshall james@jmarshall.com Berkeley, CA @}-'-,-- "Teach people what you know." ............................................................................
James Marshall wrote:
Okee dokee, here are some of the violations I found in the recent unpleasantness. Some are more important than others, and some are stronger cases than others. But in no particular order, and in an ad hoc format, here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours:
First, not a violation, but Timwi specifically asked about policies encouraging additions and discouraging deletions. To clarify, I didn't mean a hard-and-fast rule-- of course some deletions are good and some additions are bad. But it's a theme I picked up a few times on various newbie and policy pages. I'll see if I can find the references again.
... OK, here are some:
(long snip)
Please stop obsessing on this. Notwithstanding the truth and validity of what you say people only go so far in reading this kind of stuff. Those who frequent the mailing lists have heard it all before, and can become impatient when it comes to reading these long diatribes of defence. They are counterproductive to your cause.
You would do better to simply devote your time to editing real articles. Avoid hot-button items until after you have become better known, or have some track-record in less controversial areas.
Ec
Look, I only did this because Timwi specifically requested me to make a list of violations and links to policy pages-- see his previous posts. I had NO desire to spend hours on this very dry task, and I would not have if no one had asked for it. I'm not obsessing on it. Readers of this list are free to ignore it if they wish, and I've tried to make that clear in my posts. I think it's better to ignore posts that don't interest you than to criticize people for posting something uninteresting to you.
I was directed here after a friend of Jimbo's thought I should contribute to the (currently pretty one-sided) Reagan article. If my contribution has now taken the form of Q/A on the Wikipedia social system, then so be it, but that's definitely not what I came here for. It can, however, be constructive, if anyone chooses to follow up on it; that's not my choice one way or the other.
James
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
RS> James Marshall wrote: RS> RS> >Okee dokee, here are some of the violations I found in the recent RS> >unpleasantness. Some are more important than others, and some are RS> >stronger cases than others. But in no particular order, and in an ad hoc RS> >format, here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours: RS> > RS> > RS> >First, not a violation, but Timwi specifically asked about policies RS> >encouraging additions and discouraging deletions. To clarify, I didn't RS> >mean a hard-and-fast rule-- of course some deletions are good and some RS> >additions are bad. But it's a theme I picked up a few times on various RS> >newbie and policy pages. I'll see if I can find the references again. RS> > RS> >... OK, here are some: RS> > RS> (long snip) RS> RS> Please stop obsessing on this. Notwithstanding the truth and validity RS> of what you say people only go so far in reading this kind of stuff. RS> Those who frequent the mailing lists have heard it all before, and can RS> become impatient when it comes to reading these long diatribes of RS> defence. They are counterproductive to your cause. RS> RS> You would do better to simply devote your time to editing real RS> articles. Avoid hot-button items until after you have become better RS> known, or have some track-record in less controversial areas. RS> RS> Ec RS>
Ec wrote:
James Marshall wrote:
Okee dokee, here are some of the violations I found in the recent unpleasantness. Some are more important than others, and some are stronger cases than others. But in no particular order, and in an ad hoc format, here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours:
First, not a violation, but Timwi specifically asked about policies encouraging additions and discouraging deletions. To clarify, I didn't mean a hard-and-fast rule-- of course some deletions are good and some additions are bad. But it's a theme I picked up a few times on various newbie and policy pages. I'll see if I can find the references again.
... OK, here are some:
(long snip)
Please stop obsessing on this. Notwithstanding the truth and validity of what you say people only go so far in reading this kind of stuff. Those who frequent the mailing lists have heard it all before, and can become impatient when it comes to reading these long diatribes of defence. They are counterproductive to your cause.
You would do better to simply devote your time to editing real articles. Avoid hot-button items until after you have become better known, or have some track-record in less controversial areas.
Ec
It's rather unfair - he's told that no one will look at this or will believe that there is a problem unless he provides specific policies and describes how they are being broken - and when he does he is told to shut up.
I think this case has said a lot about our community reaction to newbies, I'm seriously considering starting a Save the Newbie campaign here.
--sannse
I think this case has said a lot about our community reaction to newbies, I'm seriously considering starting a Save the Newbie campaign here.
--sannse
To be fair (though matters may have gone wrong here) newbies also need saving from well-intentioned advice to start their time on WP, not logged in, adding comments on American political topics that are divisive and concerning divisiveness. The deep end.
Charles
Charles worte:
I think this case has said a lot about our community reaction to
newbies,
I'm seriously considering starting a Save the Newbie campaign here.
--sannse
To be fair (though matters may have gone wrong here) newbies also need saving from well-intentioned advice to start their time on WP, not logged in, adding comments on American political topics that are divisive and concerning divisiveness. The deep end.
Yes, such advice to take things easy at first would be part of the policies of the RSPCN (with it's US branch of SPCN of course). Those who slide easily into the Wikipedia culture tend to be those who start by writing NPOV articles about fluffy kittens rather than those jumping in to the more... ummm... /active/ areas of the 'pedia.
--sannse
do we /have/ an article on [[Fluffy kitten]]s?
But I have to respectfully disagree with both of you here-- do you really want to forbid newbies from contributing to anything controversial?
I still think things would have gone much better if the other users had not abused their power and had otherwise done what they were supposed to, _especially being more experienced users_. I think it would have been OK EVEN IF the subject is controversial. There are ways of dealing with controversy that don't involve censorship or inappropriate banning. And I'm sorry, I STILL don't see that I did anything wrong, at least nothing that wasn't done MORE wrong by the others (e.g. I could have started a discussion, but so could the others, and they had more reason to start one).
Just because I contribute something controversial does not give license to the others to behave the way they did. Does it?
???
James
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, sannse wrote:
s> Charles worte: s> s> > > I think this case has said a lot about our community reaction to s> newbies, s> > > I'm seriously considering starting a Save the Newbie campaign here. s> > > s> > > --sannse s> s> > To be fair (though matters may have gone wrong here) newbies also need s> > saving from well-intentioned advice to start their time on WP, not logged s> > in, adding comments on American political topics that are divisive and s> > concerning divisiveness. The deep end. s> s> Yes, such advice to take things easy at first would be part of the s> policies of the RSPCN (with it's US branch of SPCN of course). Those s> who slide easily into the Wikipedia culture tend to be those who start s> by writing NPOV articles about fluffy kittens rather than those jumping s> in to the more... ummm... /active/ areas of the 'pedia. s> s> --sannse s> s> do we /have/ an article on [[Fluffy kitten]]s? s>
James Marshall wrote
But I have to respectfully disagree with both of you here-- do you really want to forbid newbies from contributing to anything controversial?
No. Where you went wrong - i.e. put yourself in a false position - was to persist in editing. You may not have known what rule you were infringing, but there is a rule. You were then blocked, I assume for 24 hours, which except for Wikiholics is hardly the end of the world. You don't have to like it.
What I'm pointing out here is that there is a learning curve. The point about going straight for the most contentious topics is that the learning curve is going to be very steep. One can figure out why this must be. _Every_ non-wiki technical person I have explained wiki to, has explained back 'can't possibly work'. They are confident that a free-for-all in editing must be a disaster. Wikipedia shows they are missing something. They are missing the community self-policing effect. If a wiki works - not all do - the policing of graffiti on [[Ronald Reagan]] is going to be effective.
Now your version of the learning curve may seem to be 'your rights and how to get them'. The system is set up so this is secondary to 'freedom to edit'. Has to be that way. You'd do better to learn something about editing, in the shallower waters.
Charles
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Charles Matthews wrote:
CM> James Marshall wrote CM> CM> CM> > But I have to respectfully disagree with both of you here-- do you really CM> > want to forbid newbies from contributing to anything controversial? CM> CM> No. Where you went wrong - i.e. put yourself in a false position - CM> was to persist in editing. You may not have known what rule you were CM> infringing, but there is a rule. You were then blocked, I assume for CM> 24 hours, which except for Wikiholics is hardly the end of the world. CM> You don't have to like it.
You don't have to take an abrasive tone, Charles. I've asked you before.
No, I don't have to like it, but if newbies don't like their experience, they won't come back. Which may be just fine with some people here, but would be a great loss for a project like Wikipedia.
I don't know what you mean by "put [myself] in a false position". ???
If I was wrong to persist in editing, why weren't the others wrong to persist in their DESTRUCTIVE editing? If I was blocked, why weren't they blocked? I tried to discuss it, and they didn't. I did no worse than them at any point, and they are supposed to be the experienced users, people who are supposed to know what they're doing.
If I did do something "wrong", then I sure as hell don't know how I could have known, especially given the examples set by the others. And I think your logic that puts blame on me and not the others is pretty circuitous reasoning.
Of course the block isn't the end of the world. It can be very annoying, if I came to make a contribution, FOLLOWED the rules, and then I have to remember to come back a day or more later. Worse, I'm given no clue why I was banned, and what to do to prevent an immediate ban the next time. Why should I spend my good time making contributions when they're just going to be erased for no apparent reason?
I'm not trying to dwell on this one block I got. My point is not to whine. I'm trying to point out how part of the system has a problem that could be improved (i.e. that some sysops abuse their power, and some sysops don't even act like good users, much less sysops; also, that newbies are sometimes treated harshly for no good reason).
CM> What I'm pointing out here is that there is a learning curve. The CM> point about going straight for the most contentious topics is that the CM> learning curve is going to be very steep. One can figure out why this CM> must be. _Every_ non-wiki technical person I have explained wiki to, CM> has explained back 'can't possibly work'. They are confident that a CM> free-for-all in editing must be a disaster. Wikipedia shows they are CM> missing something. They are missing the community self-policing CM> effect. If a wiki works - not all do - the policing of graffiti on CM> [[Ronald Reagan]] is going to be effective.
Well, it obviously wasn't effective here-- what was removed wasn't graffiti. The approach taken by Texture and Oberiko-- authority-oriented, use of force over discussion, removing rather than adding, insults, lack of explanation-- seems quite in contrast to the stated values of Wikipedia; I don't see how it can lead to good articles. (The Reagan article, for example, is very one-sided and omits important facts and viewpoints.) And I still maintain the sentence they wanted is more POV than my modification, obvious by simple boolean logic (though I'm willing to discuss it, of course).
In case you don't know, Wikipedia is not the first collaborative collection of knowledge where people have to negotiate mutually-satisfactory content. I've worked on RFC's, for example. I also set up a similar (much simpler) Web-based system back around 1997. Usenet FAQs used to be done through discussion of diverse viewpoints to a negotiated product, and I assume they still are. I agree that some Wikipedia-specific learning will be involved, but some of the hardest parts have been dealt with elsewhere.
CM> Now your version of the learning curve may seem to be 'your rights and CM> how to get them'. The system is set up so this is secondary to CM> 'freedom to edit'. Has to be that way. You'd do better to learn CM> something about editing, in the shallower waters.
Please don't put words in my mouth, Charles. My purpose here is not to establish my "rights" or whatever you mean by that. I was only trying to contribute, and then when the editing social system obviously screwed up (by banning me in the way it happened), I was led to a page that mentioned this email list. I thought I'd give this avenue a chance instead of just blowing it off altogether.
Funny that you say the primary value is "freedom to edit". That's what I'm saying, too. Why don't you think that includes my "freedom to edit"?
What do you think I need to learn about editing? (I've edited books, and written content used by millions of people and many schools. I assume you mean Wikipedia-specific editing.)
Sorry, people, if I'm sounding harsh; this is just getting frustrating. I'm not one to peacefully suffer unjustified shit sent in my direction. I've been continuing this thread because other people said that it would be constructive to Wikipedia to do so, and I've tried to keep it constructive. Then, when I did what was asked (took many hours), people have criticized me for it. I thought Wikipedia was a neat idea, so I thought I'd contribute as my friend suggested. Then, after I was banned in the manner I was, I thought it was worthwhile to try to help fix the infrastructure. But I'm really starting to wonder why I should spend my time doing so, and if any good can come of it (I know some of you would want me to stay, and others want me to leave).
Or should I just learn to ignore the postings of some individuals? I can do that easily enough and not get upset.
I was trying to make this thread focused on the issues and not on me; sorry if it's been too much about me.
A new post just came through-- thank you, Denni, for your comments and support.
Best wishes, James ............................................................................ James Marshall james@jmarshall.com Berkeley, CA @}-'-,-- "Teach people what you know." ............................................................................
Charles Matthews wrote:
What I'm pointing out here is that there is a learning curve.
I'm sure there are ways of flattening that curve.
A steep learning curve for newbies is usually an indication that the introductory material on a system is insufficient or misleading.
It is only natural for newbies to have no idea how steep the learning curve really is (all they know is "you can edit this page, right now").
Timwi
James Marshall wrote:
But I have to respectfully disagree with both of you here-- do you really want to forbid newbies from contributing to anything controversial?
Please see the word "advice" in my post.
Of course newbies should be permitted to contribute where every they wish to, and of course we should be more welcoming and more willing to assume good faith when they do so. But I don't think there is anywhere on-line or off where that is not a risky thing to do, and would always *advise* newbies to start off slow and feel their way into the more controversial areas of the 'pedia.
--sannse
sannse wrote:
Charles worte:
I think this case has said a lot about our community reaction to
newbies,
I'm seriously considering starting a Save the Newbie campaign here.
--sannse
To be fair (though matters may have gone wrong here) newbies also need saving from well-intentioned advice to start their time on WP, not logged in, adding comments on American political topics that are divisive and concerning divisiveness. The deep end.
Yes, such advice to take things easy at first would be part of the policies of the RSPCN (with it's US branch of SPCN of course). Those who slide easily into the Wikipedia culture tend to be those who start by writing NPOV articles about fluffy kittens rather than those jumping in to the more... ummm... /active/ areas of the 'pedia.
--sannse
do we /have/ an article on [[Fluffy kitten]]s?
We have one on hairless cats !
On 06/25/04 18:53, sannse wrote:
Yes, such advice to take things easy at first would be part of the policies of the RSPCN (with it's US branch of SPCN of course). Those who slide easily into the Wikipedia culture tend to be those who start by writing NPOV articles about fluffy kittens rather than those jumping in to the more... ummm... /active/ areas of the 'pedia.
Yes. My very first edit was a rewrite of [[Racial Holy War]], followed by [[Ben Klassen]]. Um ...
- d.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Please stop obsessing on this.
He didn't. He did that because I asked for it, and I'm very grateful he did. It is very helpful for improving the introductory texts and stuff. I would have hoped that others would see it the same way, but apparently I'll have to do the improving by myself...