Jimbo has added a reply on [[Talk:Gary Weiss]] to the effect that the block might be "a tad excessive", but he still respects it under his prior orders for "zero tolerance and shoot on sight". He's invited Durova to reduce the block or not, and will respect it either way.
Now, does anybody else think that orders of "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" seem to fit better for the East German Stasi guarding the Berlin Wall than for anything on Wikipedia? Where's the Wikilove in that? (Have I just triggered some relative of Godwin's Law?)
We really need to change that tagline "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Anyone, that is, except the growing number of banned and blocked users, or anybody new who sounds too much like a past banned user and is tagged as a sock/meatpuppet, or anybody who runs afoul of a "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" edict, or anybody who wants to edit an article that's protected (perhaps indefinitely, like LaRouche), or anybody who objects to any of this at the wrong time and place and attracts the ire of an admin.
on 10/20/07 10:12 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Jimbo has added a reply on [[Talk:Gary Weiss]] to the effect that the block might be "a tad excessive", but he still respects it under his prior orders for "zero tolerance and shoot on sight". He's invited Durova to reduce the block or not, and will respect it either way.
Now, does anybody else think that orders of "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" seem to fit better for the East German Stasi guarding the Berlin Wall than for anything on Wikipedia? Where's the Wikilove in that? (Have I just triggered some relative of Godwin's Law?)
We really need to change that tagline "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Anyone, that is, except the growing number of banned and blocked users, or anybody new who sounds too much like a past banned user and is tagged as a sock/meatpuppet, or anybody who runs afoul of a "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" edict, or anybody who wants to edit an article that's protected (perhaps indefinitely, like LaRouche), or anybody who objects to any of this at the wrong time and place and attracts the ire of an admin.
Folks, before you write this off as an excessive rant - please think about it some.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/20/07 10:12 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Jimbo has added a reply on [[Talk:Gary Weiss]] to the effect that the block might be "a tad excessive", but he still respects it under his prior orders for "zero tolerance and shoot on sight". He's invited Durova to reduce the block or not, and will respect it either way.
Now, does anybody else think that orders of "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" seem to fit better for the East German Stasi guarding the Berlin Wall than for anything on Wikipedia? Where's the Wikilove in that? (Have I just triggered some relative of Godwin's Law?)
We really need to change that tagline "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Anyone, that is, except the growing number of banned and blocked users, or anybody new who sounds too much like a past banned user and is tagged as a sock/meatpuppet, or anybody who runs afoul of a "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" edict, or anybody who wants to edit an article that's protected (perhaps indefinitely, like LaRouche), or anybody who objects to any of this at the wrong time and place and attracts the ire of an admin.
Folks, before you write this off as an excessive rant - please think about it some.
Yes, think about everything some. But also realize that there is such a thing as an excessive rant from someone who really really has crossed the line in comparing a 24 hour block for trolling to the "East German Stasi".
--Jimbo
On 10/20/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/20/07 10:12 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Jimbo has added a reply on [[Talk:Gary Weiss]] to the effect that the block might be "a tad excessive", but he still respects it under his prior orders for "zero tolerance and shoot on sight". He's invited Durova to reduce the block or not, and will respect it either way.
Now, does anybody else think that orders of "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" seem to fit better for the East German Stasi guarding the Berlin Wall than for anything on Wikipedia? Where's the Wikilove in that? (Have I just triggered some relative of Godwin's Law?)
We really need to change that tagline "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Anyone, that is, except the growing number of banned and blocked users, or anybody new who sounds too much like a past banned user and is tagged as a sock/meatpuppet, or anybody who runs afoul of a "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" edict, or anybody who wants to edit an article that's protected (perhaps indefinitely, like LaRouche), or anybody who objects to any of this at the wrong time and place and attracts the ire of an admin.
Folks, before you write this off as an excessive rant - please think
about
it some.
Yes, think about everything some. But also realize that there is such a thing as an excessive rant from someone who really really has crossed the line in comparing a 24 hour block for trolling to the "East German Stasi".
But as Steve Summit said, this was no prima facie instance of trolling.
Johnleemk
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Now, does anybody else think that orders of "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" seem to fit better for the East German Stasi guarding the Berlin Wall than for anything on Wikipedia? Where's the Wikilove in that? (Have I just triggered some relative of Godwin's Law?)
Folks, before you write this off as an excessive rant - please think about it some.
Yes, think about everything some. But also realize that there is such a thing as an excessive rant from someone who really really has crossed the line in comparing a 24 hour block for trolling to the "East German Stasi".
Just to be clear, Jimbo, Dan wasn't comparing the Stasi to Durova's block, but rather to your request to shoot on sight. I agree that his post was hyperbolic, presumably for effect. But wasn't your bit about shooting also hyperbole?
Having read a fair bit from both of you, I subtracted that hyperbole to get to what I think are the serious meanings. But I think Marc's point is that for people who don't know the background, it's easy to misunderstand. For example, when David refers to a class of people as "the idiots", I read it as what I might call, "the less helpful participants, some of whom I trust will become better contributors down the line". To-may-to, to-mah-to.
If I understand rightly, Marc is concerned that a lot of people take these harsh words too literally, absorbing an attitude that subtly causes deleterious social effects. Personally, as a guy with friends who lovingly bandy insult and obscenity on a daily basis, it doesn't worry me much. But plain text is a notoriously easy medium to be misunderstood in, so like Marc, I think it's worth a little thought.
William
Quoting "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name:
Jimbo has added a reply on [[Talk:Gary Weiss]] to the effect that the block might be "a tad excessive", but he still respects it under his prior orders for "zero tolerance and shoot on sight". He's invited Durova to reduce the block or not, and will respect it either way.
Now, does anybody else think that orders of "zero tolerance and shoot on sight" seem to fit better for the East German Stasi guarding the Berlin Wall than for anything on Wikipedia? Where's the Wikilove in that? (Have I just triggered some relative of Godwin's Law?)
Yes, and comparing people blocking users to shooting people in real life is needlessly inflammatory. Just because Jimbo used the phrase doesn't justify the claim.