On 13 Jul 2007 at 03:35:49 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
This site does not have pages, it has threads, every one of which is a ticking bomb because they can beb added to by any subscriber and the bar to subscription is apparently low; all you need is a grudge .
And this is different from wikien-l, and its Web archive, how? You seem to be claiming that open forums are inherently evil.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:33:13 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
This site does not have pages, it has threads, every one of which is a ticking bomb because they can beb added to by any subscriber and the bar to subscription is apparently low; all you need is a grudge .
And this is different from wikien-l, and its Web archive, how? You seem to be claiming that open forums are inherently evil.
If you seriously believe that WR and wikien-l are comparable, then we have nothing more to say to each other. At least not until Jimbo says that WR is the right place for philosophical debate about Wikipedia.
Guy (JzG)
On 13/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:33:13 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
This site does not have pages, it has threads, every one of which is a ticking bomb because they can beb added to by any subscriber and the bar to subscription is apparently low; all you need is a grudge .
And this is different from wikien-l, and its Web archive, how? You seem to be claiming that open forums are inherently evil.
If you seriously believe that WR and wikien-l are comparable, then we have nothing more to say to each other. At least not until Jimbo says that WR is the right place for philosophical debate about Wikipedia.
No, he was saying that the argument you actually wrote, as quoted above, was specious, which it is.
You're attempting to justify not linking to WR for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual reason, that it's a welcoming haven for obnoxious trolls, nutters and sociopaths. Thus, the reasons you're using look silly.
- d.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:52:09 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You're attempting to justify not linking to WR for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual reason, that it's a welcoming haven for obnoxious trolls, nutters and sociopaths. Thus, the reasons you're using look silly.
That's no quite true, though. What's actually going on here is a lot of sleight of hand and goalpost-moving in order to try to pretend that links to WR might, in some places, be OK. The hierarchy of reasons why links to WR will always be inappropriate does indeed start with the fact that it is a happy home for trolls and nutters; also that it facilitates and even encourages outing and harassment; and finally, and only when the pro-WR crowd plead that not /all/ threads contain harassment and outing and attacks and trolling, only /then/ do we note that no thread is safe from these things.
There are so many reasons that links to WR are utterly inappropriate that it is a constant source of mystery to me why we are still having a debate about them.
I suspect, in the end, that certain parties simply reject any argument which does not support linking, and having done so pretend that no such arguments actually exist. It is a titanic waste of everyone's time and I guess that I will be no more successful in persuading them than anyone else has been.
Guy (JzG)
On 13/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
There are so many reasons that links to WR are utterly inappropriate that it is a constant source of mystery to me why we are still having a debate about them.
I'm still concerned that a policy of banning entire sites that haven't been specifically named as unacceptable (a) has in practice led to blithering idiocies being perpetrated, in the best of faith, despite all warnings that these were the obvious consequence of encouraging people to delink entire sites willy-nilly (b) that I haven't heard a peep from the people telling me not to mention (a) of why this isn't going to continue to be a problem in future.
- d.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
This site does not have pages, it has threads, every one of which is a ticking bomb because they can beb added to by any subscriber and the bar to subscription is apparently low; all you need is a grudge .
And this is different from wikien-l, and its Web archive, how? You seem to be claiming that open forums are inherently evil.
If you seriously believe that WR and wikien-l are comparable, then we have nothing more to say to each other. At least not until Jimbo says that WR is the right place for philosophical debate about Wikipedia.
They are comparable *in the way described*, which is that anyone can add anything to them, and what is added could potentially hurt someone.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:56:44 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
They are comparable *in the way described*, which is that anyone can add anything to them, and what is added could potentially hurt someone.
See above: the comparison is invalid because the base premise of WR is to encourage harassment, attacks, privacy violation and outing, whereas the base premise of wikien-l is to support the work of building an encyclopaedia.
Guy (JzG)
On 13/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:56:44 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
They are comparable *in the way described*, which is that anyone can add anything to them, and what is added could potentially hurt someone.
See above: the comparison is invalid because the base premise of WR is to encourage harassment, attacks, privacy violation and outing, whereas the base premise of wikien-l is to support the work of building an encyclopaedia.
No, no. The base premise of WR is to intelligently criticise Wikipedia. However, its actual *behaviour* is to encourage harassment, attacks, privacy violations and outing. And the base premise of Encyclopedia Dramatica is to fuck shit up in the pursuit of lulz, hence a blanket ban being a distinct plus for writing an encyclopedia.
- d.