Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not good.
On 28/08/07, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not good.
-- Aude _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I second this. I read every post normally, and some, from what are supposed to be our most respected editors, are plain nasty.
On 8/28/07, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list.
Agreed. That tone is inexcusable, no matter who says it, no matter where.
From: Aude audevivere@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] drama and incivility Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:06:39 -0400
Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not good.
-- Aude
You'll never get rid of enwiki drama, certainly not on enwiki mailing lists.
Simple reason? Most people don't have anything to write any more, so they start fighting instead. Seeing [[Africa]] as a redlink and writing "Africa is a continent" is fun, but that doesn't happen anymore (and "Africa is a big continent" is no longer an FA). So, people turn to drama as an alternative, because conflict is fun as well. A shame, but in this respect enwiki has become the victim of its own succcess. Antandrus talks about this better than I can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavi...
Particularly numbers 19 and 20.
C More schi
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
[...] Most people don't have anything to write any more, so they start fighting instead. Seeing [[Africa]] as a redlink and writing "Africa is a continent" is fun, but that doesn't happen anymore (and "Africa is a big continent" is no longer an FA). So, people turn to drama as an alternative, because conflict is fun as well. A shame, but in this respect enwiki has become the victim of its own succcess. [...]
That's a very interesting point. It reminds me of some large-company offices I have visited.
My worry would be that this is a self-reinforcing process. That drama would drive out people with no taste for drama, increasing the fun gap between drama and serious work.
Is that inevitable? I hope not, but all the solutions that pop to mind involve... more drama.
William
Every day on Wikipedia I come across shockingly major scientists who don't have articles, while every Pokeman card in the universe is well-catalogued. Species? We don't even have decent articles on the two dozen or so model organisms that each have hundreds of major citations. Today I found a nobel prize winner in physics whose topic we don't even appear to have an article on.
KP
On 8/28/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: Aude audevivere@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] drama and incivility Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:06:39 -0400
Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not good.
-- Aude
You'll never get rid of enwiki drama, certainly not on enwiki mailing lists.
Simple reason? Most people don't have anything to write any more, so they start fighting instead. Seeing [[Africa]] as a redlink and writing "Africa is a continent" is fun, but that doesn't happen anymore (and "Africa is a big continent" is no longer an FA). So, people turn to drama as an alternative, because conflict is fun as well. A shame, but in this respect enwiki has become the victim of its own succcess. Antandrus talks about this better than I can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavi...
Particularly numbers 19 and 20.
C More schi
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
K P wrote:
Every day on Wikipedia I come across shockingly major scientists who don't have articles, while every Pokeman card in the universe is well-catalogued. Species? We don't even have decent articles on the two dozen or so model organisms that each have hundreds of major citations. Today I found a nobel prize winner in physics whose topic we don't even appear to have an article on.
KP
On 8/28/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: Aude audevivere@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] drama and incivility Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:06:39 -0400
Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not good.
-- Aude
You'll never get rid of enwiki drama, certainly not on enwiki mailing lists.
Simple reason? Most people don't have anything to write any more, so they start fighting instead. Seeing [[Africa]] as a redlink and writing "Africa is a continent" is fun, but that doesn't happen anymore (and "Africa is a big continent" is no longer an FA). So, people turn to drama as an alternative, because conflict is fun as well. A shame, but in this respect enwiki has become the victim of its own succcess. Antandrus talks about this better than I can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavi...
Particularly numbers 19 and 20.
C More schi
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And aside from that, a lot of existing articles could sure use a lot of work. The cleanup backlog is huge, a lot need merged (and my hat's off to anyone undertaking -that- task), there's still a ton of nonfree image cleanup to do, and there's tons and tons of stubs that need some type of disposition (expansion, merge, prod, whatever it may be).
I think, though, that sometimes that's a little tougher-and quite often, our best writers like to start with a blank page, because there's no one there owning the article to say "Hey, you can't remove anything!" "Hey, you can't merge this!" "Hey, what do you mean third-party sourcing is a requirement, it's optional!"
If there's really a problem that's pernicious and under-addressed, it is OWNership and resistance to routine maintenance. We should be cheering on those who take on such gnoming tasks, and instead we're impeding them at every turn. In the same vein, there's also a persistent bias against "deletion" which I can't comprehend. We're all called editors, and the best editors cut ruthlessly and relentlessly. (Not thoughtlessly, though, and I think that some people doing it thoughtlessly have created a bias against doing it at all. This is something else which must be addressed.)
On 8/28/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
... In the same vein, there's also a persistent bias against "deletion" which I can't comprehend. We're all called editors, and the best editors cut ruthlessly and relentlessly. (Not thoughtlessly, though, and I think that some people doing it thoughtlessly have created a bias against doing it at all. This is something else which must be addressed.)
I think the latter point is the key there. I'm all for editorial (in the improve the coverage or writing or content sense) deletion; I know that saying with a really good sentence what takes a really crappy paragraph is high art and a goal for us all.
Saying better and more directly and sometimes more tersely is good. Taking content out because you don't think it belongs in this encyclopedia is very different.
That is not to say we don't have crap, but ...
On 8/28/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
... In the same vein, there's also a persistent bias against "deletion" which I can't comprehend. We're all called editors, and the best editors cut ruthlessly and relentlessly. (Not thoughtlessly, though, and I think that some people doing it thoughtlessly have created a bias against doing it at all. This is something else which must be addressed.)
I think the latter point is the key there. I'm all for editorial (in the improve the coverage or writing or content sense) deletion; I know that saying with a really good sentence what takes a really crappy paragraph is high art and a goal for us all.
Saying better and more directly and sometimes more tersely is good. Taking content out because you don't think it belongs in this encyclopedia is very different.
That is not to say we don't have crap, but ...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
This kind of editor is just the sort for whom AGF need never apply, and is likely to be drummed out of Wikipedia rather quickly. Yes, Todd is correct that ownership is a problem. And when good copy editors come in, and start making articles more direct, and generally improving how things are said, they get pounced upon, and the're out of here in nothing flat.
I agree that ownership is a major problem on Wikipedia.
I love all the editors who come by and edit my prose. I will never post a list of articles I have worked on, because nothing I've done deserves that kind of attachment to me, due to all the excellent people who've spit-shined the least details of everything I've written.
KP
This is very true and insightful. If you can't find articles that need work, try reading the damn encyclopaedia. I'm constantly shocked by missing articles - major scientists, yes and all kinds of other topics. There are maps to be drawn, pictures to be taken, citations to look up (many of which are easy to find), redlinks to be filled in, unwikified articles ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WilyD/potential this sandbox of my lists about 40 musicians I intend to write articles for, for instance. If you don't know where work needs to be done, try reading.
That said, editors who purge all the redlinks don't help the situation. Next time you write an article, include at least one redlink.
WilyD
On 8/29/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Every day on Wikipedia I come across shockingly major scientists who don't have articles, while every Pokeman card in the universe is well-catalogued. Species? We don't even have decent articles on the two dozen or so model organisms that each have hundreds of major citations. Today I found a nobel prize winner in physics whose topic we don't even appear to have an article on.
KP
On 8/28/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: Aude audevivere@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] drama and incivility Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:06:39 -0400
Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent
NY
Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being
informed
about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away,
you
trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only
one
here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and
polite
towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the
ideals
behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we
can
please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list
could
use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's
not
good.
-- Aude
You'll never get rid of enwiki drama, certainly not on enwiki mailing
lists.
Simple reason? Most people don't have anything to write any more, so
they
start fighting instead. Seeing [[Africa]] as a redlink and writing
"Africa
is a continent" is fun, but that doesn't happen anymore (and "Africa is
a
big continent" is no longer an FA). So, people turn to drama as an alternative, because conflict is fun as well. A shame, but in this
respect
enwiki has become the victim of its own succcess. Antandrus talks about
this
better than I can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavi...
Particularly numbers 19 and 20.
C More schi
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 29/08/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
This is very true and insightful. If you can't find articles that need work, try reading the damn encyclopaedia. I'm constantly shocked by missing
As penance for my rudeness, I am currently using AutoWikiBrowser to put [[Image:Replace this image male.svg]] or [[Image:Replace this image female.svg]] on all [[Category:Living people]] articles that don't have an image. This should add nicely to our free content pile. 44 added, 34 already had pics, 217,866 left to check!
- d.
on 8/28/07 12:06 PM, Aude at audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not good.
Please hang in there, Aude. It is you, and others like you, that prove there is hope for the survival of the Project. The fact that anyone would even try to rationalize and/or justify saying to another person, "Go away, you trolling fuckwit" is symptomatic of the cancer that exists in the culture. But cancers can be treated. The cancerous parts can be removed. This takes time, patience and perseverance. The prognosis is excellent: a healthy, creative, productive culture. Hang in there, Aude.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
[...] The fact that anyone would even try to rationalize and/or justify saying to another person, "Go away, you trolling fuckwit" is symptomatic of the cancer that exists in the culture. [...]
This is just SO not true. Marc, as I believe you've said yourself in the past, you're not especially experienced with large collaborative online projects. Trolls and other disrupters will keep poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking until even the most patient of saints lose their cool - by definition, that is the goal. It doesn't mean there is a cancer in the project, or that it's doomed, or whatever, it just means that everybody has a breaking point. Of the various online projects I've worked in the past 25 years, WP is by far the most tolerant of troublemakers; on serious projects like GNU or Linux, people won't even talk to you until you've proven yourself useful somehow, and if you even slightly irritate one of the project owners, you might as well as give up and move on to something else.
Stan
On 8/29/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
[...] The fact that anyone would even try to rationalize and/or justify saying to another person, "Go away, you trolling fuckwit" is symptomatic of the cancer that exists in the culture. [...]
This is just SO not true. Marc, as I believe you've said yourself in the past, you're not especially experienced with large collaborative online projects. Trolls and other disrupters will keep poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking until even the most patient of saints lose their cool - by definition, that is the goal. It doesn't mean there is a cancer in the project, or that it's doomed, or whatever, it just means that everybody has a breaking point. Of the various online projects I've worked in the past 25 years, WP is by far the most tolerant of troublemakers; on serious projects like GNU or Linux, people won't even talk to you until you've proven yourself useful somehow, and if you even slightly irritate one of the project owners, you might as well as give up and move on to something else.
Absolutely. I think many of us are approaching this situation from different angles, with different points of reference. Please bear in mind that this is a mailing list, not a wiki, and that our standards here are different because of this.
Also, folks, please try to reread the conversation that took place prior to David's comment. I would not have reacted the way David did, but what he did was hardly unjustified, and I think, not inappropriate.
Johnleemk
On 8/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. I think many of us are approaching this situation from different angles, with different points of reference. Please bear in mind that this is a mailing list, not a wiki, and that our standards here are different because of this.
Also, folks, please try to reread the conversation that took place prior to David's comment. I would not have reacted the way David did, but what he did was hardly unjustified, and I think, not inappropriate.
Johnleemk
Moderating that conversation, all involved, I think would have helped. I'll just note that Frank's first message to the list was on Sunday. Is he unmoderated now? To keep prying into someone's personal matters, as he did was entirely unacceptable, once it was said the matter was being dealt with. But, no one should post such language as David did, as it only flames the situation. Not all discussions would need moderation, but I think some may.
On 28/08/07, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. I think many of us are approaching this situation from different angles, with different points of reference. Please bear in mind that this is a mailing list, not a wiki, and that our standards here are different because of this.
Also, folks, please try to reread the conversation that took place prior to David's comment. I would not have reacted the way David did, but what he did was hardly unjustified, and I think, not inappropriate.
Johnleemk
Moderating that conversation, all involved, I think would have helped. I'll just note that Frank's first message to the list was on Sunday. Is he unmoderated now? To keep prying into someone's personal matters, as he did was entirely unacceptable, once it was said the matter was being dealt with. But, no one should post such language as David did, as it only flames the situation. Not all discussions would need moderation, but I think some may.
-- Aude
Frank seemed to believe Jayjg had hurt the project somehow and deserved... something. I disagreed. Others disagreed as well. However, I am perfectly happy to keep debating the point until one of us changes our mind, the various arguments are exhausted, or we are exhausted. Perhaps pretty much everyone is exhausted, but Frank is still welcome to keep debating it with me.
On 8/28/07, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. I think many of us are approaching this situation from different angles, with different points of reference. Please bear in mind that
this
is a mailing list, not a wiki, and that our standards here are different because of this.
Also, folks, please try to reread the conversation that took place prior to David's comment. I would not have reacted the way David did, but what he did was hardly unjustified, and I think, not inappropriate.
Johnleemk
Moderating that conversation, all involved, I think would have helped.
Perhaps it's best if you send an e-mail to -owner next time this happens, in case they aren't as aware as they should be.
I'll
just note that Frank's first message to the list was on Sunday. Is he unmoderated now? To keep prying into someone's personal matters, as he did was entirely unacceptable, once it was said the matter was being dealt with. But, no one should post such language as David did, as it only flames the situation. Not all discussions would need moderation, but I think some may.
-- Aude _______________________________________________ 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 8/28/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
[...] The fact that anyone would even try to rationalize and/or justify saying to another person, "Go away, you trolling fuckwit" is symptomatic of the cancer that exists in the culture. [...]
This is just SO not true. Marc, as I believe you've said yourself in the past, you're not especially experienced with large collaborative online projects. Trolls and other disrupters will keep poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking until even the most patient of saints lose their cool - by definition, that is the goal. It doesn't mean there is a cancer in the project, or that it's doomed, or whatever, it just means that everybody has a breaking point. Of the various online projects I've worked in the past 25 years, WP is by far the most tolerant of troublemakers; on serious projects like GNU or Linux, people won't even talk to you until you've proven yourself useful somehow, and if you even slightly irritate one of the project owners, you might as well as give up and move on to something else.
Wikipedia is also very unlike those other projects; the social scope is too large for anyone to really "see" it all, and it's far from a monolithic unified project.
In some ways our community is more like some of the online social communities (larger newsgroups, large chat systems, discussion forum programs, etc) of yore than large software projects.
See Shirky's "A group is its own worst enemy" for some deeper discussions along these lines ( http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html ).
There have been a very few people who were remarkably hard to provoke over time (Spaf and Tale on Usenet, etc) and formed cohesive cores for decade-plus long online sociotechnical constructs. I think anyone looking at how Wikipedia deals with its internal strife can see that a lot of how "we" respond hurts rather than helps, including the occational blowing up at someone who meets the "are they trying to get a rise out of us" definition of trolling.
Marc Riddell wrote:
[...] The fact that anyone would even try to rationalize and/or justify saying to another person, "Go away, you trolling fuckwit" is symptomatic of the cancer that exists in the culture. [...]
on 8/28/07 2:09 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
This is just SO not true. Marc, as I believe you've said yourself in the past, you're not especially experienced with large collaborative online projects. Trolls and other disrupters will keep poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking until even the most patient of saints lose their cool - by definition, that is the goal. It doesn't mean there is a cancer in the project, or that it's doomed, or whatever, it just means that everybody has a breaking point. Of the various online projects I've worked in the past 25 years, WP is by far the most tolerant of troublemakers; on serious projects like GNU or Linux, people won't even talk to you until you've proven yourself useful somehow, and if you even slightly irritate one of the project owners, you might as well as give up and move on to something else.
Stan,
No matter what the medium, how large or how small the group, any interpersonal communication requires a degree of self-control. Know your vulnerable spots. If someone is pushing them, and you don't like what it is doing to you - move on. You have that choice (unless you're a prisoner somewhere). But know, if you push back, you have now escalated, and become part of, the problem.
A great part of the cancer I refer to is the attitude of some persons in the Community who not only condone, but actually encourage, the type of personal attack statements that began this conversation. And, the practice of some of calling names and labeling people they disagree with, rather than either engaging them in the subject or moving on.
Both of the above behaviors are ones we are supposed to have left behind on the playground.
The Project may be very large, but it is also very young. And its ultimate survival is going to depend on the ability of its people to communicate with one another effectively.
Also, the double standard that has come to light as a result of this incident is a subject for a whole other thread.
Marc
On 28/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
[...] The fact that anyone would even try to rationalize and/or justify saying to another person, "Go away, you trolling fuckwit" is symptomatic of the cancer that exists in the culture. [...]
on 8/28/07 2:09 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
This is just SO not true. Marc, as I believe you've said yourself in the past, you're not especially experienced with large collaborative online projects. Trolls and other disrupters will keep poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking and poking until even the most patient of saints lose their cool - by definition, that is the goal. It doesn't mean there is a cancer in the project, or that it's doomed, or whatever, it just means that everybody has a breaking point. Of the various online projects I've worked in the past 25 years, WP is by far the most tolerant of troublemakers; on serious projects like GNU or Linux, people won't even talk to you until you've proven yourself useful somehow, and if you even slightly irritate one of the project owners, you might as well as give up and move on to something else.
Stan,
No matter what the medium, how large or how small the group, any interpersonal communication requires a degree of self-control. Know your vulnerable spots. If someone is pushing them, and you don't like what it is doing to you - move on. You have that choice (unless you're a prisoner somewhere). But know, if you push back, you have now escalated, and become part of, the problem.
It's not always so simple. Yes, you can quit a job at any time, but if a guy is hitting on you and groping you even after you say 'no', should you really end up having to quit before you get fired? I tried avoiding him, he kept pushing, the store manager wouldn't schedule us separately, or even avoid leaving us alone together. I tried to protect his reputation. What I should've done is slap him in the face the first time he tried to grope.
And suppose you leave but they continue attacking your reputation on a website which often ranks number 1 on Google. Sound like a website you know? And so, the trouble follows you, anywhere you are known by the same name or pseudonym.
Play a doormat, and people may reciprocate by walking on you. Don't play a doormat, and perhaps they will sledgehammer your heart, but at least you tried.
A great part of the cancer I refer to is the attitude of some persons in the Community who not only condone, but actually encourage, the type of personal attack statements that began this conversation. And, the practice of some of calling names and labeling people they disagree with, rather than either engaging them in the subject or moving on.
True, it is something of a societal problem.
Both of the above behaviors are ones we are supposed to have left behind on the playground.
Oh wow. I still occasionally get a person who decides to beat me up because he or she in debt and wants someone to take it out on, and I'm talking middle-aged folks. The insanity continues all life long.
The Project may be very large, but it is also very young. And its ultimate survival is going to depend on the ability of its people to communicate with one another effectively.
Also, the double standard that has come to light as a result of this incident is a subject for a whole other thread.
Marc
I don't find cross-site flame wars particularly effective. Perhaps OTRS could be granted ambassadorial privilege?
On 28/08/2007, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not good.
-- Aude
I like the concept behind the project, but until it becomes a more reasonable place to expend effort as a volunteer, I'm not going to launch back in to full time contributions.
The fact is that Wikipedia cannot magically operate smoothly without doing away with this mistaken ideology that random editors can force sensible policies to coalesce. What it needs is the "Wiki model" not to be used for policy, and for dedicated operators of the project, preferably with relevant expertise and credentials to be appointed, sit down and form set-in-stone ideals (or at least difficult to adjust, or with a formal method for adjustment) for the project, and then state them clearly (as the project will be biased as a result - fine as long as the bias is recognised - attempts can even be made to make up for it). Article content would continue to be worked on using the Wiki model, and disagreements would be more easily dealt with from the point of view of simple clearly defined policies rather than ones so complicated and contradictory as to allow essentially arbitrary results from disputes based on the most persistent or influential parties in the dispute.
At present Wikipedia suffers the same problems and more as any other operation as regards bias and ideology, but problematically these are not clear to outsiders (or even insiders) and not even consistent (certainly whatever unstated principles people were adhering to when I began are not the ones that are used now). I recently re-read WP:POINT and found it to be a hideous draconian piece of nonsense that can be used against basically anyone if there's enough people applying it to them.
I look forward to when I can justify spending my time freely on Wikipedia again. Time I can otherwise use for a great many things.
Wikipedia's main contribution to me has been to instill a deep distrust of any new phenomenon or Internet craze. There's no way I'm going near Citizendium for example until it's firmly established it's credibility amongst my peers. Even then I'll probably wait - my peers too were taken in by Wikipedia at the beginning. I feel like the dwarves in the Narnia book, "The Last Battle". Although I'm pretty certain my cynicism towards all "Web 2.0" nonsense is entirely justified - it's almost the exact phrasing for " Dot.com rerun"
Zoney
On 29/08/2007, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
the ones that are used now). I recently re-read WP:POINT and found it to be a hideous draconian piece of nonsense that can be used against basically anyone if there's enough people applying it to them.
It was supposed to be a guideline, not a robotic policy - i.e., it can only meaningfully be used by people of good will and cluifiability. Are old versions any better?
- d.
On 29/08/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It was supposed to be a guideline, not a robotic policy - i.e., it can only meaningfully be used by people of good will and cluifiability. Are old versions any better?
- d.
The concept of a guideline is problematic in itself. It allows rebuttal on the grounds of "well the guideline is this" or in a different circumstance, the argument "well, it's only a guideline". Certain there's an argument for not being inflexible and not having "one case fits all", but in reality, these situations merely allow those who are most persistent, or successfully push other parties aside through being more influential, having more support, etc. to get their way. That's not doing things by consensus, and isn't even necessarily doing things by majority or by the best arguments.
Zoney
On 8/29/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/08/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It was supposed to be a guideline, not a robotic policy - i.e., it can only meaningfully be used by people of good will and cluifiability. Are old versions any better?
- d.
The concept of a guideline is problematic in itself. It allows rebuttal on the grounds of "well the guideline is this" or in a different circumstance, the argument "well, it's only a guideline". Certain there's an argument for not being inflexible and not having "one case fits all", but in reality, these situations merely allow those who are most persistent, or successfully push other parties aside through being more influential, having more support, etc. to get their way. That's not doing things by consensus, and isn't even necessarily doing things by majority or by the best arguments.
I agree. We've been using "consensus" as a handy abbreviation for "the Wikipedia decision process" for far too long. Under the Wikipedia decision process, guidelines are used sensibly. Under either consensus or majoritarianism, guidelines are either ignored or treated as rigid sacred commandments.
Johnleemk