-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 04:29 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
On 11/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Right, and that is where "the idiot" should have to look for it. It is >>inappropriate to trash our own users on our own site.
This is not seriously in dispute, as far as I can tell.
That is exactly what is in dispute.
Fred
On 10/11/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 04:29 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
On 11/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Right, and that is where "the idiot" should have to look for it. It is >>inappropriate to trash our own users on our own site.
This is not seriously in dispute, as far as I can tell.
That is exactly what is in dispute.
Fred
Fred
No, it isn't. Nobody disputes this. If that were the case, we wouldn't see people seriously concerned that they'll be banned for linking to Slate.com in the article on Slate.com, for example. The dispute is somewhere else entirely. If your missing that, it's probably why your point is being interpreted so differently from how you intend it. Based on the BADSITES arbcom, I was genuinely surprised to see you saying linking to Slate.com would be acceptable under any circumstances. Rest assured I'm not alone in this.
Cheers, WilyD
On 11/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Right, and that is where "the idiot" should have to look for it. It is inappropriate to trash our own users on our own site.
This is not seriously in dispute, as far as I can tell.
That is exactly what is in dispute.
No, what is in dispute as what can be *defined* as "trashing our users on our own site". No-one seriously discussing this supports making vicious personal attacks against people, and it is both dishonest and insulting to imply they do.
What people are trying to decide is
a) how we can best react when other people do it, or when other people talk about people doing it, or when other people find themselves inextricably linked with people doing it... and,
b) how far we stretch the definition of what it means to *make* such an attack; whether alluding to or linking to one made by a third party is considered making it oneself.
These are actually in dispute, and you don't get to redefine the terms of the debate so anyone who disagrees, or has the temerity to argue with a diktat, is trolling.
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It is inappropriate to trash our own users on our own site.
This is not seriously in dispute, as far as I can tell.
That is exactly what is in dispute.
Fred, if you seriously think that's what I am disputing, then you have gravely misunderstood my position. I believe that goes for quite a number of people involved here as well.
It's very frustrating to have spent hours carefully trying to explain my view, only to have it reduced to something that is a) obviously idiotic, and b) deeply antithetical to what I've been trying to do for the dozen years I've spent working on on-line community.
William
On 11/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 04:29 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
On 11/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Right, and that is where "the idiot" should have to look for it. It is >>inappropriate to trash our own users on our own site.
This is not seriously in dispute, as far as I can tell.
That is exactly what is in dispute.
No, it really isn't.
What is in dispute is whether linking to a non-attack page on a site which also has attack pages counts as "trashing our own users on our own site".
What is also in dispute is the subjective manner in which potential "attack sites" are assessed.