Fred Bauder wrote:
This sort of thing, banning links to external sites, if done at all, needs to be limited to sites that extend their activities beyond criticism of Wikipedia to actions that hurt individual Wikipedia users. The blog seems to focus on publicizing Will Beback's real name which she got from ED. She is offended at his interactions with her when she edits.
Actually, banning links to external sites should not be done AT ALL. I don't care if the external site in question is run by someone who has a personal dungeon where they flay Wikipedia users with flaming razors. Banning links to their site is just bad policy, no matter what they are doing. If they are doing something ILLEGAL that "hurts individual Wikipedia users," they can be prosecuted for it in an actual court of law, but banning links to their site just turns otherwise sensible Wikipedians into stupid bureaucrats and makes things worse. It also invites the question, "What makes Wikipedia so damn special?" As the essay that was recently posted here points out, Wikipedia has no problem linking to Nazi websites and a host of other sites that promote violence, hurt people and break the law. It's ridiculous and embarrassing to have a policy that says "we don't care who else you hurt as long as you don't hurt Wikipedians." Finally, the question of what it means to "hurt" someone is impossible to define adequately for the purpose of making this policy practical -- especially since some people can be very thin-skinned about criticism.
This is the sort of situation where I think it would be good if Jimbo stepped in and played God to put an end to this nonsense.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/ custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107 --------------------------------
On 5/28/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
This sort of thing, banning links to external sites, if done at all, needs to be limited to sites that extend their activities beyond criticism of Wikipedia to actions that hurt individual Wikipedia users. The blog seems to focus on publicizing Will Beback's real name which she got from ED. She is offended at his interactions with her when she edits.
Actually, banning links to external sites should not be done AT ALL. I don't care if the external site in question is run by someone who has a personal dungeon where they flay Wikipedia users with flaming razors. Banning links to their site is just bad policy, no matter what they are doing. If they are doing something ILLEGAL that "hurts individual Wikipedia users," they can be prosecuted for it in an actual court of law, but banning links to their site just turns otherwise sensible Wikipedians into stupid bureaucrats and makes things worse. It also invites the question, "What makes Wikipedia so damn special?" As the essay that was recently posted here points out, Wikipedia has no problem linking to Nazi websites and a host of other sites that promote violence, hurt people and break the law. It's ridiculous and embarrassing to have a policy that says "we don't care who else you hurt as long as you don't hurt Wikipedians." Finally, the question of what it means to "hurt" someone is impossible to define adequately for the purpose of making this policy practical -- especially since some people can be very thin-skinned about criticism.
This is the sort of situation where I think it would be good if Jimbo stepped in and played God to put an end to this nonsense.
Exactly. Context is key - and furthermore, banning things on a site-by-site basis is ridiculous. If the entire site is devoted to, say, outing an anonymous individual's identity, then hell yes, kill links to it with fire (unless, say, it becomes notable, in which case, link to it where absolutely necessary). But if there's a site run by a famous chef who also has a vendetta against, say, me, should we ban links to his site because one page of it is devoted to libel against me, while there are dozens of helpful pages that could be used as sources for articles about cuisine-related articles?
The absolutist thinking of those who say "all BADSITES must go" is well-meant but causing a lot of grief and, I would suggest, will harm the encyclopaedia if it has not already.
I think the Arbcom should clarify their decision to say that "attack sites" refers to sites composed of nothing but attacks - Brandt's Hive Mind site is probably a good example - and not just sites which contain attacks but also contain other content.
Johnleemk
On 5/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. Context is key - and furthermore, banning things on a site-by-site basis is ridiculous. If the entire site is devoted to, say, outing an anonymous individual's identity, then hell yes, kill links to it with fire (unless, say, it becomes notable, in which case, link to it where absolutely necessary). But if there's a site run by a famous chef who also has a vendetta against, say, me, should we ban links to his site because one page of it is devoted to libel against me ...
John, I don't think anyone is arguing that extreme position. It's a strawman. The whole BADSITES policy proposal was a strawman started by a sockpocket. All that's being argued is that sites *devoted* to outing and defamation -- the purpose-built attackers, where it's all or most of what they do -- shouldn't be linked to.
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
John, I don't think anyone is arguing that extreme position. It's a strawman. The whole BADSITES policy proposal was a strawman started by a sockpocket. All that's being argued is that sites *devoted* to outing and defamation -- the purpose-built attackers, where it's all or most of what they do -- shouldn't be linked to.
And in practice, Will Beback continues a personal fight with Teresa Nielsen Hayden by removing all references to her (important and relevant) site from the encyclopedia, invoking WP:BADSITES, a policy that isn't one.
- d.
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. Context is key - and furthermore, banning things on a
site-by-site
basis is ridiculous. If the entire site is devoted to, say, outing an anonymous individual's identity, then hell yes, kill links to it with
fire
(unless, say, it becomes notable, in which case, link to it where
absolutely
necessary). But if there's a site run by a famous chef who also has a vendetta against, say, me, should we ban links to his site because one
page
of it is devoted to libel against me ...
John, I don't think anyone is arguing that extreme position. It's a strawman. The whole BADSITES policy proposal was a strawman started by a sockpocket. All that's being argued is that sites *devoted* to outing and defamation -- the purpose-built attackers, where it's all or most of what they do -- shouldn't be linked to.
Then that's eminently reasonable (with the caveat, of course, if that such a site ever makes the headlines worldwide, our article shouldn't be excused from linking to it just because it attacks Wikipedians). The problem is, many people I've seen enforcing this idea - Will Beback just being the most recent example - don't take such a reasonable stance. It's not even based on the rejected BADSITES proposal; I've seen people basing their ridiculous claims solely on the arbcom decision's wording.
Johnleemk
On 5/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
John, I don't think anyone is arguing that extreme position. It's a strawman. The whole BADSITES policy proposal was a strawman started by a sockpocket. All that's being argued is that sites *devoted* to outing and defamation -- the purpose-built attackers, where it's all or most of what they do -- shouldn't be linked to.
Then that's eminently reasonable (with the caveat, of course, if that such a site ever makes the headlines worldwide, our article shouldn't be excused from linking to it just because it attacks Wikipedians). The problem is, many people I've seen enforcing this idea - Will Beback just being the most recent example - don't take such a reasonable stance. It's not even based on the rejected BADSITES proposal; I've seen people basing their ridiculous claims solely on the arbcom decision's wording.
The ArbCom's decision is good as a rule of thumb. Note that it says: "[a] website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ..." (emphasis added). That doesn't include an otherwise decent website that happens to repeat a Wikipedian's name without that person's consent. It's not a good thing that someone has been named, but that one act doesn't tranform it into an attack site.
People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common sense has to be applied, as always.
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
John, I don't think anyone is arguing that extreme position. It's a strawman. The whole BADSITES policy proposal was a strawman started by a sockpocket. All that's being argued is that sites *devoted* to outing and defamation -- the purpose-built attackers, where it's all or most of what they do -- shouldn't be linked to.
Then that's eminently reasonable (with the caveat, of course, if that
such a
site ever makes the headlines worldwide, our article shouldn't be
excused
from linking to it just because it attacks Wikipedians). The problem is, many people I've seen enforcing this idea - Will Beback just being the
most
recent example - don't take such a reasonable stance. It's not even
based on
the rejected BADSITES proposal; I've seen people basing their ridiculous claims solely on the arbcom decision's wording.
The ArbCom's decision is good as a rule of thumb. Note that it says: "[a] website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ..." (emphasis added). That doesn't include an otherwise decent website that happens to repeat a Wikipedian's name without that person's consent. It's not a good thing that someone has been named, but that one act doesn't tranform it into an attack site.
People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common sense has to be applied, as always.
All well and good, except for the problem that a lot of our opponents *are* nuts.
Johnleemk
For the record, calling them opponents just seems dumb. We're writing an encyclopedia, not engaged in a giant good vs evil war for the future of humanity. As soon as we start framing things in this way means we have started taking things to seriously and need to step back and breathe for a minute.
On 5/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
John, I don't think anyone is arguing that extreme position. It's a strawman. The whole BADSITES policy proposal was a strawman started
by
a sockpocket. All that's being argued is that sites *devoted* to outing and defamation -- the purpose-built attackers, where it's
all
or most of what they do -- shouldn't be linked to.
Then that's eminently reasonable (with the caveat, of course, if that
such a
site ever makes the headlines worldwide, our article shouldn't be
excused
from linking to it just because it attacks Wikipedians). The problem
is,
many people I've seen enforcing this idea - Will Beback just being the
most
recent example - don't take such a reasonable stance. It's not even
based on
the rejected BADSITES proposal; I've seen people basing their
ridiculous
claims solely on the arbcom decision's wording.
The ArbCom's decision is good as a rule of thumb. Note that it says: "[a] website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ..." (emphasis added). That doesn't include an otherwise decent website that happens to repeat a Wikipedian's name without that person's consent. It's not a good thing that someone has been named, but that one act doesn't tranform it into an attack site.
People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common sense has to be applied, as always.
All well and good, except for the problem that a lot of our opponents *are* nuts.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ 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 5/28/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
For the record, calling them opponents just seems dumb. We're writing an encyclopedia, not engaged in a giant good vs evil war for the future of humanity. As soon as we start framing things in this way means we have started taking things to seriously and need to step back and breathe for a minute.
The problem is that not everyone is engaged in writing an encyclopedia. An increasingly large number of people hang around Wikipedia project space to stir up conflict, and they tend to be the ones who want to link to these sites. And before you jump down my throat, I'm not saying that everyone who supports the pro-linking position is just a troublemaker, but a fair number of them are.
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
For the record, calling them opponents just seems dumb. We're writing an encyclopedia, not engaged in a giant good vs evil war for the future of humanity. As soon as we start framing things in this way means we have started taking things to seriously and need to step back and breathe for a minute.
The problem is that not everyone is engaged in writing an encyclopedia. An increasingly large number of people hang around Wikipedia project space to stir up conflict, and they tend to be the ones who want to link to these sites. And before you jump down my throat, I'm not saying that everyone who supports the pro-linking position is just a troublemaker, but a fair number of them are.
The supporters of BADSITES talk sweet reason, but every time they *act* upon the idea they act like rabid killbots on crack. Surely you can see this introduces scepticism, and is also why many of us have profound scepticism of the idea.
The attempt to abuse an RFA to try to backdoor in an utterly failed bad policy proposal is disgraceful.
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that not everyone is engaged in writing an encyclopedia. An increasingly large number of people hang around Wikipedia project space to stir up conflict, and they tend to be the ones who want to link to these sites. And before you jump down my throat, I'm not saying that everyone who supports the pro-linking position is just a troublemaker, but a fair number of them are.
The supporters of BADSITES talk sweet reason, but every time they *act* upon the idea they act like rabid killbots on crack. Surely you can see this introduces scepticism, and is also why many of us have profound scepticism of the idea.
The attempt to abuse an RFA to try to backdoor in an utterly failed bad policy proposal is disgraceful.
That isn't even remotely what's happening, David. First, I haven't seen anyone who supports the removal of these links going around removing them in any systematic way, never mind like "rabid killbots on crack." If you're talking about Will, there are particular reasons for what he did that I've explained to you, and he hasn't been one of the vocal supporters (that I'm aware of) of removing links to these sites, and didn't vote in the RfA. You're mixing up apples and oranges.
As for the RfA, I opposed because I'm unhappy with the candidate's replies to questions on a *number* of issues, and I get the impression (rightly or wrongly) of someone who acts before thinking. *That* is the basis of my opposition, and it's a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose someone.
Please don't keep raising the issue of BADSITES. It was started by a strawman sock for the purpose of stirring it. Please don't do his job for him.
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The supporters of BADSITES talk sweet reason, but every time they *act* upon the idea they act like rabid killbots on crack. Surely you can see this introduces scepticism, and is also why many of us have profound scepticism of the idea. The attempt to abuse an RFA to try to backdoor in an utterly failed bad policy proposal is disgraceful.
That isn't even remotely what's happening, David. First, I haven't seen anyone who supports the removal of these links going around removing them in any systematic way, never mind like "rabid killbots on crack."
The last go-round, when the policy's supporters were removing Daniel Brandt's links from the Signpost article about Daniel Brandt. The go-round before that, when they were removing the names of sites from the discussions.
This is why the policy failed: how it was actually carried out in testing.
Please don't keep raising the issue of BADSITES. It was started by a strawman sock for the purpose of stirring it. Please don't do his job for him.
I dislike BADSITES because of the way it's been implemented every time it's been put into practice. Or is that the trolls deleting the links?
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The supporters of BADSITES talk sweet reason, but every time they *act* upon the idea they act like rabid killbots on crack. Surely you can see this introduces scepticism, and is also why many of us have profound scepticism of the idea. The attempt to abuse an RFA to try to backdoor in an utterly failed bad policy proposal is disgraceful.
That isn't even remotely what's happening, David. First, I haven't seen anyone who supports the removal of these links going around removing them in any systematic way, never mind like "rabid killbots on crack."
The last go-round, when the policy's supporters were removing Daniel Brandt's links from the Signpost article about Daniel Brandt. The go-round before that, when they were removing the names of sites from the discussions.
This is why the policy failed: how it was actually carried out in testing.
Please don't keep raising the issue of BADSITES. It was started by a strawman sock for the purpose of stirring it. Please don't do his job for him.
I dislike BADSITES because of the way it's been implemented every time it's been put into practice. Or is that the trolls deleting the links?
BADSITES had existed in spirit for about 18 months and had been practised without fuss for the most part. Then a troll turned up and decided to write it down, and cleverly chose a shortcut that in itself would make most people cringe. The troll's concept was that the best way to get rid of a law you don't like is to enforce it rigorously.
Any rule applied without common sense is going to get a bad name -- but as you say, it's the application that's at fault, not the basic idea. I'm arguing here against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
A few posts up, Slim Virgin said:
"Please don't keep raising the issue of BADSITES. It was started by a strawman sock for the purpose of stirring it. Please don't do his job for him."
I completely agree with Slim that this was started by someone who had some pretty murky ulterior motives; I'll take her word that it was a sock. The question is how to stanch the bad practices that are flowing from it.
The most straightforward way would be to mark BADSITES as either rejected or historic, and to remove the disputed section in the current policy. (That takes care of the messy attempt made by DennyColt.) As far as I can tell, there was absolutely no objection to the idea of including a statement in the current NPA policy supporting the removal of any links where the content of the link met the definition of a personal attack, regardless of the origin of the content.
Recent history - and from what I read, past history as well - indicates that wiping out all links to sites where there is negative content about one or more editors has had a negative impact on the encyclopedia. But even people who have argued that links should be removed on a case-by-case basis have demonstrated that they are willing and ready to remove links to threads that can even remotely be considered personal attacks.
I agree that the current impasse has gone on long enough.
Risker
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The supporters of BADSITES talk sweet reason, but every time they *act* upon the idea they act like rabid killbots on crack. Surely
you
can see this introduces scepticism, and is also why many of us have profound scepticism of the idea. The attempt to abuse an RFA to try to backdoor in an utterly failed bad policy proposal is disgraceful.
That isn't even remotely what's happening, David. First, I haven't seen anyone who supports the removal of these links going around removing them in any systematic way, never mind like "rabid killbots on crack."
The last go-round, when the policy's supporters were removing Daniel Brandt's links from the Signpost article about Daniel Brandt. The go-round before that, when they were removing the names of sites from the discussions.
This is why the policy failed: how it was actually carried out in
testing.
Please don't keep raising the issue of BADSITES. It was started by a strawman sock for the purpose of stirring it. Please don't do his job for him.
I dislike BADSITES because of the way it's been implemented every time it's been put into practice. Or is that the trolls deleting the links?
BADSITES had existed in spirit for about 18 months and had been practised without fuss for the most part. Then a troll turned up and decided to write it down, and cleverly chose a shortcut that in itself would make most people cringe. The troll's concept was that the best way to get rid of a law you don't like is to enforce it rigorously.
Any rule applied without common sense is going to get a bad name -- but as you say, it's the application that's at fault, not the basic idea. I'm arguing here against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
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 5/28/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree with Slim that this was started by someone who had some pretty murky ulterior motives; I'll take her word that it was a sock. The question is how to stanch the bad practices that are flowing from it.
The most straightforward way would be to mark BADSITES as either rejected or historic, and to remove the disputed section in the current policy. (That takes care of the messy attempt made by DennyColt.) As far as I can tell, there was absolutely no objection to the idea of including a statement in the current NPA policy supporting the removal of any links where the content of the link met the definition of a personal attack, regardless of the origin of the content.
The policy should describe what admins actually do. Most admins that I'm aware of remove these links when they see them, not in a systematic way, but if they happen to find one. There are very few situations where they're added legitimately.
The way to defeat the troll is probably to stop talking about the issue, because that's what he wanted. We have an ArbCom ruling, and we have admins who can implement it sensibly. If anyone sees a silly implementation of it, please e-mail that admin and put them straight. End of story.
Slim Virgin wrote:
The policy should describe what admins actually do. Most admins that I'm aware of remove these links when they see them, not in a systematic way, but if they happen to find one. There are very few situations where they're added legitimately.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an admin removing those links "when they see them" a "systematic way"? There may be few situations where they are added legitimately, but when they are added legitimately, they should be left alone.
The way to defeat the troll is probably to stop talking about the issue, because that's what he wanted. We have an ArbCom ruling, and we have admins who can implement it sensibly. If anyone sees a silly implementation of it, please e-mail that admin and put them straight. End of story.
Oh, how convenient. So we ignore the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, and it will magically go away. And if it doesn't magically go away, editors should quietly contact someone through the back door to say, "um, what the hell" and hope that that person will both acknowledge their concern and correct it.
Yeah, that'll work.
On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
The policy should describe what admins actually do. Most admins that I'm aware of remove these links when they see them, not in a systematic way, but if they happen to find one. There are very few situations where they're added legitimately.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an admin removing those links "when they see them" a "systematic way"? There may be few situations where they are added legitimately, but when they are added legitimately, they should be left alone.
The way to defeat the troll is probably to stop talking about the issue, because that's what he wanted. We have an ArbCom ruling, and we have admins who can implement it sensibly. If anyone sees a silly implementation of it, please e-mail that admin and put them straight. End of story.
Oh, how convenient. So we ignore the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, and it will magically go away. And if it doesn't magically go away, editors should quietly contact someone through the back door to say, "um, what the hell" and hope that that person will both acknowledge their concern and correct it.
Yeah, that'll work.
Yes, I think it would work, because most admins are sensible, and even when they're not initally, they tend to be once quietly shown the arguments. And if they disagree, maybe they'll persuade the other guy. That's how reasoned debate works, and when it's about an area that some people are deliberately stirring up, it's best to discuss it off-wiki.
Slim, would you support the changes I proposed a few posts ago? It does not conflict with your position that most admins are sensible (and I agree with you there), but at the same time does not tie anyone's hands when a situation such as the WillBeBack one occurs.
Risker
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
The policy should describe what admins actually do. Most admins that I'm aware of remove these links when they see them, not in a systematic way, but if they happen to find one. There are very few situations where they're added legitimately.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an admin removing those links "when they see them" a "systematic way"? There may be few situations where they are added legitimately, but when they are added legitimately, they should be left alone.
The way to defeat the troll is probably to stop talking about the issue, because that's what he wanted. We have an ArbCom ruling, and we have admins who can implement it sensibly. If anyone sees a silly implementation of it, please e-mail that admin and put them straight. End of story.
Oh, how convenient. So we ignore the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, and it will magically go away. And if it doesn't magically go away, editors should quietly contact someone through the back door to say, "um, what the hell" and hope that that person will both acknowledge their concern and correct it.
Yeah, that'll work.
Yes, I think it would work, because most admins are sensible, and even when they're not initally, they tend to be once quietly shown the arguments. And if they disagree, maybe they'll persuade the other guy. That's how reasoned debate works, and when it's about an area that some people are deliberately stirring up, it's best to discuss it off-wiki.
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 5/28/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Slim, would you support the changes I proposed a few posts ago? It does not conflict with your position that most admins are sensible (and I agree with you there), but at the same time does not tie anyone's hands when a situation such as the WillBeBack one occurs.
The problem with marking that proposal as rejected (as you were saying earlier) is it makes it appear that what it ought not to be happening, but it *is* happening.
The problem with this whole discussion is that lots of people are taking part in it in bad faith. One of the most vocal opponents of no-links-to-attack-sites is simultaneously posting to WR that he's been doing Google research on me to see how easy it is to identify me. It's impossible to assume good faith with that going on, and I have to question why someone like that is allowed to interfere with our policies. But they are, because we allow anyone to edit anything.
Opposing a policy or practise because of dodgy implementation is like Jeff opposing BLP because of the way he sees it panning out. The answer is not to ditch BLP, but to have a quiet word with people who are being too heavy-handed. A *quiet* word, because the person having the word might be wrong and the heavy-handed ones might be right. Policies often need tweaking back and forth as we watch how real people really apply them. The tweaking only works when everyone's acting in good faith. When you have an issue that trolls have an especially keen interest in, the good-faith system collapses, and every tweak creates a new platform for further drama.
No one that I know is seriously suggesting that -- as you wrote earlier -- "sites where there is negative content about one or more editors" are ipso facto attack sites. What we are saying is that *purpose-built* attack sites shouldn't be linked to, and that is what the ArbCom said too. We can deal with exceptions when we come to them. That's how I would like to leave it, at least for now until the excitement has died down.
Fundamentally, this is a BLP issue. Our editors are living persons. They don't want to be outed and defamed, and they don't want the readership of sites *dedicated* to these attacks to be increased. That's all this boils down to.
BADSITES could certainly be marked as "historic" just as the similar proposal you made a year ago, Slim. I don't think anyone would object to that; on the other hand, it certainly did not carry any form of consensus, and from what we are seeing in this thread and other similar threads here on wiki-en-l, there is considerable resistance from a wide range of editors, administrators, and even arbitrators on having anyone interpret it as policy.
Would you support the inclusion of a sentence in NPA indicating that links to content that meets the definition of personal attacks will be treated in the same way as a direct personal attack? And would you support the removal of the disputed section on the current version of NPA? That section really is BADSITES in short, and continues to perpetuate the very issue you have (correctly I believe) found to be unnecessarily provocative.
Quiet words off-wiki may well have been the suitable way to address this situation two years ago, when there were about 500 "serious" editors and a more homogeneous pool of administrators. Now, there are easily more than ten times that number of serious editors and over 1200 admins. Wikipedia has blossomed beyond the small community where a "word to the wise" can control processes. The mere fact that there have been ongoing disputes about just about every Wikipedia policy in recent months indicates how dramatically the community has changed.
Risker
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Slim, would you support the changes I proposed a few posts ago? It does
not
conflict with your position that most admins are sensible (and I agree
with
you there), but at the same time does not tie anyone's hands when a situation such as the WillBeBack one occurs.
The problem with marking that proposal as rejected (as you were saying earlier) is it makes it appear that what it ought not to be happening, but it *is* happening.
The problem with this whole discussion is that lots of people are taking part in it in bad faith. One of the most vocal opponents of no-links-to-attack-sites is simultaneously posting to WR that he's been doing Google research on me to see how easy it is to identify me. It's impossible to assume good faith with that going on, and I have to question why someone like that is allowed to interfere with our policies. But they are, because we allow anyone to edit anything.
Opposing a policy or practise because of dodgy implementation is like Jeff opposing BLP because of the way he sees it panning out. The answer is not to ditch BLP, but to have a quiet word with people who are being too heavy-handed. A *quiet* word, because the person having the word might be wrong and the heavy-handed ones might be right. Policies often need tweaking back and forth as we watch how real people really apply them. The tweaking only works when everyone's acting in good faith. When you have an issue that trolls have an especially keen interest in, the good-faith system collapses, and every tweak creates a new platform for further drama.
No one that I know is seriously suggesting that -- as you wrote earlier -- "sites where there is negative content about one or more editors" are ipso facto attack sites. What we are saying is that *purpose-built* attack sites shouldn't be linked to, and that is what the ArbCom said too. We can deal with exceptions when we come to them. That's how I would like to leave it, at least for now until the excitement has died down.
Fundamentally, this is a BLP issue. Our editors are living persons. They don't want to be outed and defamed, and they don't want the readership of sites *dedicated* to these attacks to be increased. That's all this boils down to.
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 5/28/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Would you support the inclusion of a sentence in NPA indicating that links to content that meets the definition of personal attacks will be treated in the same way as a direct personal attack?
As I said earlier, the problem with the worst of the sites is that practically every link will lead to a page containing a serious personal attack, even if that's not the comment being linked to. It's the site we want to prevent links to, not just particular pages.
The other problem with your proposal is if we equate on- and off-wiki attacks, it would mean we could ban people for off-wiki attacks, something the community has not previously supported. Similarly, the systematic removal of on-wiki attacks is not fully supported.
What we are talking about are the sites, not particular attacks.
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Would you support the inclusion of a sentence in NPA indicating that
links
to content that meets the definition of personal attacks will be treated
in
the same way as a direct personal attack?
As I said earlier, the problem with the worst of the sites is that practically every link will lead to a page containing a serious personal attack, even if that's not the comment being linked to. It's the site we want to prevent links to, not just particular pages.
The other problem with your proposal is if we equate on- and off-wiki attacks, it would mean we could ban people for off-wiki attacks, something the community has not previously supported. Similarly, the systematic removal of on-wiki attacks is not fully supported.
That is not at all what I said. What I said was that using a link to make a personal attack is the same as making a direct personal attack. That does not mean that the person using the link would have to be linking to their own personal work off-wiki; it simply means that it should be treated in the same way as any other personal attack. It concerns me that, when there is not support for the systemic removal of on-wiki attacks, we should be systemically removing links to any site. Remember that any site can be used to make a personal attack, it doesn't have to be just the big three (or is it four?).
What we are talking about are the sites, not particular attacks.
I'm afraid that's where the divergence is on this particular issue. Some, yourself included, are talking about particular sites. The rest of us are talking about personal attacks.
_______________________________________________
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 5/28/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: What we are talking about are the sites, not particular attacks.
I'm afraid that's where the divergence is on this particular issue. Some, yourself included, are talking about particular sites. The rest of us are talking about personal attacks.
The problem is that "the rest of us" includes good--faith editors, but it also includes people who post to these sites and who are trying to stir things up. It's therefore impossible to measure consensus in any meaningful way except by the actions of admins and experienced editors. If most continue to remove links to these sites, we have consensus to do it; and if not, not. Only time will tell, and I suggest we leave it there.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/28/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that "the rest of us" includes good--faith editors, but it also includes people who post to these sites and who are trying to stir things up. It's therefore impossible to measure consensus in any meaningful way except by the actions of admins and experienced editors. If most continue to remove links to these sites, we have consensus to do it; and if not, not. Only time will tell, and I suggest we leave it there.
Are people adding enough of these links that most experienced editors will have a chance to remove them? If so, the problem is much larger than I thought.
On the other hand, if it's a relatively small number of links, then the method you suggest would lead to the appearance of consensus even though a relatively small number of people actively remove links to sites (rather than particular attacks, which I think all agree are out of bounds). If that's the case, I'd rather have an open discussion and come to consensus by the traditional manner, talking.
I don't know if others feel this way, but I'd rather have a clear policy to enforce, even if the policy is only making clear the factors we should have in mind when exercising our best judgment.
Thanks,
William
I agree with you that it should say what the actual expectation is. As far as I can tell, the only unopposed removals of all links to a site were the removals to ED following the MONGO ruling; there hasn't been another unopposed attempt since then, so the reality is that admins (and for that matter, any user) is well justified to remove links to attack content. And, as with any other kind of personal attack, admins can block the person instigating the attack.
Risker
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree with Slim that this was started by someone who had
some
pretty murky ulterior motives; I'll take her word that it was a
sock. The
question is how to stanch the bad practices that are flowing from it.
The most straightforward way would be to mark BADSITES as either
rejected or
historic, and to remove the disputed section in the current
policy. (That
takes care of the messy attempt made by DennyColt.) As far as I can
tell,
there was absolutely no objection to the idea of including a statement
in
the current NPA policy supporting the removal of any links where the
content
of the link met the definition of a personal attack, regardless of the origin of the content.
The policy should describe what admins actually do. Most admins that I'm aware of remove these links when they see them, not in a systematic way, but if they happen to find one. There are very few situations where they're added legitimately.
The way to defeat the troll is probably to stop talking about the issue, because that's what he wanted. We have an ArbCom ruling, and we have admins who can implement it sensibly. If anyone sees a silly implementation of it, please e-mail that admin and put them straight. End of story.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Slim Virgin wrote:
BADSITES had existed in spirit for about 18 months and had been practised without fuss for the most part. [...] Any rule applied without common sense is going to get a bad name -- but as you say, it's the application that's at fault, not the basic idea. I'm arguing here against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Could somebody point me to the baby? I happily ignored most of the BADSITES thing the first time around, and I'm having trouble coming to grips with what people are actually proposing we do or not do.
From SV's posts and others in this thread, I gather the core notion is that we should not aid off-Wikipedia attacks on particular Wikipedians by drawing unnecessary attention to them by direct linking. And that further, there exist sites that are mainly attacks on Wikipedians, and so our presumption should be that any link to that site is probably aiding an attack. However, we should strive to use good judgment, rather than applying rules mechanistically. Is that a fair statement? And is that laid out somewhere on Wikipedia?
On the other side, Daniel Tobias's essay seems to be the closest thing I've found on-wiki to an opposing view. That was helpful, but is there a more direct statement of the proposed policy alternative?
Thanks,
William
On 5/28/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
For the record, calling them opponents just seems dumb. We're writing an encyclopedia, not engaged in a giant good vs evil war for the future of humanity. As soon as we start framing things in this way means we have started taking things to seriously and need to step back and breathe for a minute.
Ironically, that's the stated mission of one of the "BADSITES", to get the goats of those who take themselves too seriously.
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
John, I don't think anyone is arguing that extreme position. It's a strawman. The whole BADSITES policy proposal was a strawman started by a sockpocket. All that's being argued is that sites *devoted* to outing and defamation -- the purpose-built attackers, where it's all or most of what they do -- shouldn't be linked to.
Then that's eminently reasonable (with the caveat, of course, if that such a site ever makes the headlines worldwide, our article shouldn't be excused from linking to it just because it attacks Wikipedians). The problem is, many people I've seen enforcing this idea - Will Beback just being the most recent example - don't take such a reasonable stance. It's not even based on the rejected BADSITES proposal; I've seen people basing their ridiculous claims solely on the arbcom decision's wording.
The ArbCom's decision is good as a rule of thumb. Note that it says: "[a] website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ..." (emphasis added). That doesn't include an otherwise decent website that happens to repeat a Wikipedian's name without that person's consent. It's not a good thing that someone has been named, but that one act doesn't tranform it into an attack site.
People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common sense has to be applied, as always.
So let's say we have an RfA. I want to be able to point to something questionable the user said on Wikipedia Review. Should I be able to do that? How about Wikitruth.info 's page on the person (not to attack them, to show that the person is so good Wikitruth attacks them). Can I do that? ~~~~
Slim Virgin wrote:
People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common sense has to be applied, as always.
People who want to go on a rampage against links to "dedicated attack sites" are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts as well. Now, true, there may be some trolls and nutters in the mix, but the vast majority of people opposing an absolutist policy not because they want to link to the sites, but rather because they recognize that there are occasions where a link to an alleged "attack site" may be useful in an encyclopedic context, or during relevant on-wiki discussions. If common sense has to be applied, why is it that so few are willing to do so?
"Dedicated attack sites" is also a misnomer, as no site truly fit this description. Wikipedia Review is dedicated to critique of Wikipedia, although I'll admit it often falls short. It isn't dedicated to harassing and outing Wikipedia editors (this does, however, happen, and I won't deny it.) Encyclopedia Dramatica is a bit closer to the description, as it is dedicated to drama, and the producing of it, but nonetheless it is not a "dedicated attack site" either. Nor is Brandt's site, or wikitruth, or any other site which editors are on a rampage against.
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common sense has to be applied, as always.
The opponents have been doing this all by themselves. Common sense is *not* applied; what these people want is to always delete links to attack sites 100% of the time, never admitting any circumstances when such links might be useful.
All the argument really is is whether links to attack sites are usually bad, or whether links to attack sites are bad 100% of the time and may be rejected robotically. The latter position is the one taken by opponents of attack site links.
John Lee wrote:
I think the Arbcom should clarify their decision to say that "attack sites" refers to sites composed of nothing but attacks - Brandt's Hive Mind site is probably a good example - and not just sites which contain attacks but also contain other content.
Not at all!! Judges do not revisit their past decisions unless there is a clear error. Any case is decided on the basis of specific facts. To go back now to change the ruling would only strenghthen the notion that Arbcom rulings form legal precedents. I don't know if we are ready for that.
Ec
On 5/29/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
I think the Arbcom should clarify their decision to say that "attack
sites"
refers to sites composed of nothing but attacks - Brandt's Hive Mind site
is
probably a good example - and not just sites which contain attacks but
also
contain other content.
Not at all!! Judges do not revisit their past decisions unless there is a clear error. Any case is decided on the basis of specific facts. To go back now to change the ruling would only strenghthen the notion that Arbcom rulings form legal precedents. I don't know if we are ready for that.
Ec
All of which is well and good, except that the Arbcom isn't strictly modeled on a judiciary, and for the fact that the Arbcom routinely accepts requests for clarification...
Johnleemk