The Mangoe wrote:
As far as I can tell, DennyColt just took it upon himself to turn the ArbCom statements into a policy and then began enforcing it against Wikipedia Review (which the ArbCom decision pointed to).
Actually, the arbitration decision often relied on for removing links to attack sites involved Encyclopedia Dramatica and did not mention Wikipedia Review at all. How far that principle extends is obviously a matter of debate, but for an endeavor that requires as much fact-checking as Wikipedia, I'm constantly disappointed with the inability of some people to keep even simple, easily checked facts straight.
--Michael Snow
On 5/29/07, Michael Snow wikipedia@att.net wrote:
Actually, the arbitration decision often relied on for removing links to attack sites involved Encyclopedia Dramatica and did not mention Wikipedia Review at all. How far that principle extends is obviously a matter of debate, but for an endeavor that requires as much fact-checking as Wikipedia, I'm constantly disappointed with the inability of some people to keep even simple, easily checked facts straight.
It was more general than that. They found that: "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_...
Note: a website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information doesn't include websites that just happen to name someone once, but that mostly do other things.
There was also a recent request for clarification, where it was confirmed that the definition included Wikipedia Review.
Slim Virgin wrote:
It was more general than that. They found that: "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_...
Note: a website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information doesn't include websites that just happen to name someone once, but that mostly do other things.
There was also a recent request for clarification, where it was confirmed that the definition included Wikipedia Review.
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist, and blindly removing any and all links to troublesome sites simply stirs up unnecessary drama, and actually causes *more* attention to be driven to those sites.
If a user posts a link in an attempt to harass another contributor, that link should be removed, and the user warned or blocked as deemed appropriate. If a good-faith editor of longstanding posts a link to a site in an attempt to invoke reasoned discussion regarding an issue, common sense should be applied, and the link removed only if it is evident that there is no or marginal benefit to retaining it.
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
It was more general than that. They found that: "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_...
Note: a website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information doesn't include websites that just happen to name someone once, but that mostly do other things.
There was also a recent request for clarification, where it was confirmed that the definition included Wikipedia Review.
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Not this again... Someone apparently thought it was worthwhile to cite a criticism from WR in the Expert rebellion discussion. In the case of TNH's blog, it is being used to cite numerous articles. One does not need to think of occaisions; the uses are already out there.
On 5/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Not this again... Someone apparently thought it was worthwhile to cite a criticism from WR in the Expert rebellion discussion. In the case of TNH's blog, it is being used to cite numerous articles. One does not need to think of occaisions; the uses are already out there.
WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
Do we have to recapitulate all the old arguments? There are NO links to WR in article space, and IIRC none in article talk space either. ALL of the links are in user or project space or their talk pages, where those policies are not germane in the way that is implied here. There are numerous RfC/ArbCom links to WR, which is hardly surprising, since it is the ONLY reliable source as to its own content. Be that as it may, an entire post of mine was deleted because I tried to cite the actual contents of WR in the attack sites discussion. Just call me Youssarian.
On 30/05/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Be that as it may, an entire post of mine was deleted because I tried to cite the actual contents of WR in the attack sites discussion. Just call me Youssarian.
They only removed your posts so as to help demonstrate the unity of opinion on the matter. Of course. That's why BADSITES isn't a failed policy.
- d.
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Be that as it may, an entire post of mine was deleted because I tried to cite the actual contents of WR in the attack sites discussion. Just call me Youssarian.
They only removed your posts so as to help demonstrate the unity of opinion on the matter. Of course. That's why BADSITES isn't a failed policy.
Unity of whose opinion? The only principle I saw being applied was that there didn't need to be new policy because they could already delete such links on the basis of the ArbCom statement. Plenty of people disagree with that assertion.
On 30/05/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Be that as it may, an entire post of mine was deleted because I tried to cite the actual contents of WR in the attack sites discussion. Just call me Youssarian.
They only removed your posts so as to help demonstrate the unity of opinion on the matter. Of course. That's why BADSITES isn't a failed policy.
Unity of whose opinion? The only principle I saw being applied was that there didn't need to be new policy because they could already delete such links on the basis of the ArbCom statement. Plenty of people disagree with that assertion.
Evidently I am too subtle some days.
- d.
Not having slept well last night, it's easy to slip subtlety by me today...
On 5/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
Do we have to recapitulate all the old arguments? There are NO links to WR in article space, and IIRC none in article talk space either. ALL of the links are in user or project space or their talk pages, where those policies are not germane in the way that is implied here. There are numerous RfC/ArbCom links to WR, which is hardly surprising, since it is the ONLY reliable source as to its own content.
So you're saying that linking to WR might be of benefit in an ArbCom case which used WR posts as evidence. How would it benefit Wikipedia to link to WR in User or Project space?
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Not this again... Someone apparently thought it was worthwhile to cite a criticism from WR in the Expert rebellion discussion. In the case of TNH's blog, it is being used to cite numerous articles. One does not need to think of occaisions; the uses are already out there.
WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
Links to attack sites have been removed from talk pages. [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] do not apply to talk pages.
On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Not this again... Someone apparently thought it was worthwhile to cite a criticism from WR in the Expert rebellion discussion. In the case of TNH's blog, it is being used to cite numerous articles. One does not need to think of occaisions; the uses are already out there.
WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
Links to attack sites have been removed from talk pages. [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] do not apply to talk pages.
Since nothing in WR could be added to an article (as it doesn't qualify under [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]), and since Talk: pages is to describe article content, then there's no benefit to Wikipedia in linking to it on Talk: pages.
Again, that's what the claim was; that it benefits Wikipedia to link to WR. I can see how it benefits WR, of course.
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
Links to attack sites have been removed from talk pages. [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] do not apply to talk pages.
Since nothing in WR could be added to an article (as it doesn't qualify under [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]), and since Talk: pages is to describe article content, then there's no benefit to Wikipedia in linking to it on Talk: pages.
That is utterly ridiculous. Things may be quoted and said on talk pages that are not acceptable for inclusion in an article themselves. Linking to non-verifiable material, even though an article shouldn't contain non-verifiable material, is no different from mentioning the results of a Google search even though no article may contain the results of your Google search.
Just because a talk page is used to describe article content doesn't mean that everything on it must be suitable for article content.
On 5/31/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
Links to attack sites have been removed from talk pages. [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] do not apply to talk pages.
Since nothing in WR could be added to an article (as it doesn't qualify under [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]), and since Talk: pages is to describe article content, then there's no benefit to Wikipedia in linking to it on Talk: pages.
That is utterly ridiculous. Things may be quoted and said on talk pages that are not acceptable for inclusion in an article themselves. Linking to non-verifiable material, even though an article shouldn't contain non-verifiable material, is no different from mentioning the results of a Google search even though no article may contain the results of your Google search.
I can see the benefit of a discussing the results of a Google search. I haven't yet seen the value of linking to WR on an article Talk: page, given that none of the information posted there is trustworthy.
jayjg wrote:
I can see the benefit of a discussing the results of a Google search. I haven't yet seen the value of linking to WR on an article Talk: page, given that none of the information posted there is trustworthy.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Currently, there is no value of linking to WR on an article talkpage. That doesn't preclude the possibility that there may be in the future, however.
Again, the "articles" subforum was initially set up to discuss, in-depth, problems with article content. This is more or less what I'm referring to: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1286&view=findpost..., and even that doesn't really go *that* in-depth. But evaluations of that nature can be constructive to Wikipedia, and are one of the few occasions where a link to WR /might/ make sense on an article talkpage.
Of course, the referenced URL is an older post, and there haven't been any other evaluations of that nature for some time. I don't anticipate that anyone is about to go perform one, either.
On 6/1/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Again, the "articles" subforum was initially set up to discuss, in-depth, problems with article content. This is more or less what I'm referring to: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1286&view=findpost..., and even that doesn't really go *that* in-depth. But evaluations of that nature can be constructive to Wikipedia, and are one of the few occasions where a link to WR /might/ make sense on an article talkpage.
Here's a recent example, which actually led to an AfD for some nonsense:
The Mangoe wrote:
Here's a recent example, which actually led to an AfD for some nonsense:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=9010
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Er, yeah, that would arguably be constructive. However, a link to WR wouldn't really be necessary or appropriate in that particular case. All a reader would have to do would be 1) Read the topic, 2) read the article, and 3) add {{db-nonsense}}. (The article wasn't sent to AFD. It was a valid speedy)
I only read there occasionally, but I have noticed there have been a few threads that have had some valid and constructive recommendations for improving articles; in fact, most of those recommendations appear to have been implemented when I go to check the articles. (Obviously, there are a lot more WP editors who read this site than post there.) Unfortunately, I have also noticed that even the useful threads tend to go off topic and get filled with irrelevant editor-bashing. That is just plain bad moderating, in my opinion; in most message boards I use (and the one I co-moderate), that wandering off into irrelevancy is either moved to the correct thread or deleted outright. Because of this tendency, even if I found a thread there that had useful content in it, I would be very hesitant to post a link to it on WP; though I don't agree with the outright banning of any website, I have no faith in WP to keep any threads free of abuse.
On 6/1/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
The Mangoe wrote:
Here's a recent example, which actually led to an AfD for some nonsense:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=9010
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Er, yeah, that would arguably be constructive. However, a link to WR wouldn't really be necessary or appropriate in that particular case. All a reader would have to do would be 1) Read the topic, 2) read the article, and 3) add {{db-nonsense}}. (The article wasn't sent to AFD. It was a valid speedy)
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 5/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Not this again... Someone apparently thought it was worthwhile to cite a criticism from WR in the Expert rebellion discussion. In the case of TNH's blog, it is being used to cite numerous articles. One does not need to think of occaisions; the uses are already out there.
TNH's blog is not an attack site. I can't think of any situation where it would be necessary to link to WR or ED.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
It was more general than that. They found that: "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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_...
Note: a website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information doesn't include websites that just happen to name someone once, but that mostly do other things.
There was also a recent request for clarification, where it was confirmed that the definition included Wikipedia Review.
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
At some point one of these sites may become a news article itself. Stalkers will generally stop at nothing, that's why they still wind up in their stalkees bedrooms well armed after the restraining order and after a number of trips to jail. In this case, if the attack site is the stalker's venue, and it becomes a news article, will there be a link to the attack site? There will be other less drastic cases, where the attack site becomes newsworthy itself for some other reason, and does contain attacks and outings of Wikipedia editors, or where the Wikipedia editor defames themself in an outing way (the Roman Catholic "PhD" editor) that may lead to the site itself becoming a part of the normal wealth of sources that contribute to a Wikipedia articles.
In these cases, as a general debate here, should the attack site be listed in the Wikipedia article?
KP
On 5/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
It was more general than that. They found that: "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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_...
Note: a website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information doesn't include websites that just happen to name someone once, but that mostly do other things.
There was also a recent request for clarification, where it was confirmed that the definition included Wikipedia Review.
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
At some point one of these sites may become a news article itself. Stalkers will generally stop at nothing, that's why they still wind up in their stalkees bedrooms well armed after the restraining order and after a number of trips to jail. In this case, if the attack site is the stalker's venue, and it becomes a news article, will there be a link to the attack site? There will be other less drastic cases, where the attack site becomes newsworthy itself for some other reason, and does contain attacks and outings of Wikipedia editors, or where the Wikipedia editor defames themself in an outing way (the Roman Catholic "PhD" editor) that may lead to the site itself becoming a part of the normal wealth of sources that contribute to a Wikipedia articles.
In these cases, as a general debate here, should the attack site be listed in the Wikipedia article?
If WR ever did become newsworthy, we'd still cite the news stories about it, not WR itself.
Jay.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If WR ever did become newsworthy, we'd still cite the news stories about it, not WR itself.
We routinely link to articles about a given subject, especially for articles on websites/Internet entities. Would WR be a special exemption if they were notable enough for an article? Why is there a link to Wikitruth here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitruth#External_links
If that were the case?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If WR ever did become newsworthy, we'd still cite the news stories about it, not WR itself.
We routinely link to articles about a given subject, especially for articles on websites/Internet entities. Would WR be a special exemption if they were notable enough for an article? Why is there a link to Wikitruth here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitruth#External_links
If that were the case?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
So you're saying that if WR were actually notable, and if we had an article on it, then that would justify having a link to the page. When else would we link to it, outside of that unlikely circumstance?
Jay.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So you're saying that if WR were actually notable, and if we had an article on it, then that would justify having a link to the page. When else would we link to it, outside of that unlikely circumstance?
If the site was notable enough for inclusion, then yes, it should have a link back, the same as any other web enterprise. That's not even really a question, is it?
For other circumstances, it was alleged by some in Gracenote's RFA that he was a Wikipedia Review poster. Where was the evidence? Without evidence, it was basically poisoning the well, and that poor guy's name. E-defamation, or wikifamation, I suppose.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 30/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
For other circumstances, it was alleged by some in Gracenote's RFA that he was a Wikipedia Review poster. Where was the evidence? Without evidence, it was basically poisoning the well, and that poor guy's name. E-defamation, or wikifamation, I suppose.
Indeed. The BADSITES advocates behaved poisonously on that RFA.
- d.
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
For other circumstances, it was alleged by some in Gracenote's RFA that
he
was a Wikipedia Review poster. Where was the evidence? Without evidence,
it
was basically poisoning the well, and that poor guy's name.
E-defamation, or
wikifamation, I suppose.
Indeed. The BADSITES advocates behaved poisonously on that RFA.
I may have missed it in reading it yesterday, but was any evidence of Grace being a WR poster under that name or another ever even provided?
To quote what someone said (can't recall if on WP or WR--was it you?): "Single issue politics have made it to Wikipedia".
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
I may have missed it in reading it yesterday, but was any evidence of Grace being a WR poster under that name or another ever even provided?
Yes, but only a small number of posts.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
I may have missed it in reading it yesterday, but was any evidence of
Grace
being a WR poster under that name or another ever even provided?
Yes, but only a small number of posts.
Does participation there in even a non-harmful form (I didn't say Gracenotes say anything like "Fuck bob the admin," etc.) a negative? Should people that post there not become admins? What about sitting admins that have posted there?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
I may have missed it in reading it yesterday, but was any evidence of Grace being a WR poster under that name or another ever even provided?
Well, it looks like a user named Gracenotes has posted as of today 8 times total on WR. Is this a capital crime? I note also that others like Phil Sandifer also at one point or another had posted there, as well. Break out the admin recall?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I may have missed it in reading it yesterday, but was any evidence of Grace being a WR poster under that name or another ever even provided?
[[User:Grace Note]] posted to Wikipedia Review, but was not well accepted there. I do not recall if [[User:Gracenotes]] has ever posted to the forum. I could be mistaken, however.
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So you're saying that if WR were actually notable, and if we had an article on it, then that would justify having a link to the page. When else would we link to it, outside of that unlikely circumstance?
If the site was notable enough for inclusion, then yes, it should have a link back, the same as any other web enterprise. That's not even really a question, is it?
Not really, but the odds of that site becoming notable are pretty low.
For other circumstances, it was alleged by some in Gracenote's RFA that he was a Wikipedia Review poster. Where was the evidence? Without evidence, it was basically poisoning the well, and that poor guy's name. E-defamation, or wikifamation, I suppose.
Are you asking whether or not it was true, or making a point about linking to his posts on WR?
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
will generally stop at nothing, that's why they still wind up in their stalkees bedrooms well armed after the restraining order and after a number of trips to jail. In this case, if the attack site is the stalker's venue, and it becomes a news article, will there be a link to the attack site? There will be other less drastic cases, where the attack site becomes newsworthy itself for some other reason, and does contain attacks and outings of Wikipedia editors, or where the Wikipedia editor defames themself in an outing way (the Roman Catholic "PhD" editor) that may lead to the site itself becoming a part of the normal wealth of sources that contribute to a Wikipedia articles.
In these cases, as a general debate here, should the attack site be listed in the Wikipedia article?
If WR ever did become newsworthy, we'd still cite the news stories about it, not WR itself.
We wouldn't cite it, but we'd of course link to it. It would be ludicrous to have an article about a website and nowhere in the article mention the website's URL. Even the mainstream news doesn't do that sort of thing anymore---back in the late 90s they'd infuriatingly write about controversial websites without providing links, but these days they almost invariably do, even if sometimes they include a disclaimer like "WARNING: LINK MAY HAVE NAZIS AT THE OTHER END".
-Mark
On 5/30/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
will generally stop at nothing, that's why they still wind up in their stalkees bedrooms well armed after the restraining order and after a number of trips to jail. In this case, if the attack site is the stalker's venue, and it becomes a news article, will there be a link to the attack site? There will be other less drastic cases, where the attack site becomes newsworthy itself for some other reason, and does contain attacks and outings of Wikipedia editors, or where the Wikipedia editor defames themself in an outing way (the Roman Catholic "PhD" editor) that may lead to the site itself becoming a part of the normal wealth of sources that contribute to a Wikipedia articles.
In these cases, as a general debate here, should the attack site be listed in the Wikipedia article?
If WR ever did become newsworthy, we'd still cite the news stories about it, not WR itself.
We wouldn't cite it, but we'd of course link to it.
Yes, in the extremely unlikely event that WR became notable, we might want to have a link to the website on the article about the website. That's one. I've heard one more possibility advanced so far, if there were an arbcom case that involved evidence on WR.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, in the extremely unlikely event that WR became notable, we might want to have a link to the website on the article about the website. That's one. I've heard one more possibility advanced so far, if there were an arbcom case that involved evidence on WR.
With the latter, all we'd have to do is e-mail the link, or a screenshot of the post, to the ArbCom.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, in the extremely unlikely event that WR became notable, we might want to have a link to the website on the article about the website. That's one. I've heard one more possibility advanced so far, if there were an arbcom case that involved evidence on WR.
With the latter, all we'd have to do is e-mail the link, or a screenshot of the post, to the ArbCom.
Both of which are much better solutions, since there's no guarantee that such a post would stay up very long, once revealed. As far as I can tell, the only way to 100% ensure WR will keep a post up is if you send them an e-mail insisting they take it down because it is slanderous or libellous.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
With the latter, all we'd have to do is e-mail the link, or a screenshot of the post, to the ArbCom.
Two problems:
1. Screenshots are trivially easy to forge. AGF, and all, but no one should trust screenshots in general. 2. How would people be able to know what evidence was being presented against them, to refute/endorse/comment on it, or for others to do so? Secret evidence?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
With the latter, all we'd have to do is e-mail the link, or a screenshot of the post, to the ArbCom.
Two problems:
- Screenshots are trivially easy to forge. AGF, and all, but no one should
trust screenshots in general.
In that case, the person concerned would be able to say they didn't post it.
- How would people be able to know what evidence was being presented
against them, to refute/endorse/comment on it, or for others to do so? Secret evidence?
E-mailing evidence to the ArbCom is common, particularly with issues relating to real identities and similar. The ArbCom then makes the decision whether the other party needs to be told about it. All of that can be done without the material having to be posted publicly.
I find it odd that people are struggling to come up with examples of when a link to one of these toxic sites might be necessary. :-)
Unless someone has erased some recently, there are 193 links to Wikipedia Review in the English Wikipedia. We aren't talking about a small number of links.
I actually went to WR to check out the "has he posted there" question. It turns out that he has, all of six entries. There's nothing controversial in any of those posts, other than interacting with the other WR people as if they were rational human beings.
And as far as their character is concerned, they don't seem to me to be any worse than Wikipedia itself, which is all too often pretty bad. My opinion, of course.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
With the latter, all we'd have to do is e-mail the link, or a screenshot of the post, to the ArbCom.
Two problems:
- Screenshots are trivially easy to forge. AGF, and all, but no one should
trust screenshots in general.
In that case, the person concerned would be able to say they didn't post it.
- How would people be able to know what evidence was being presented
against them, to refute/endorse/comment on it, or for others to do so? Secret evidence?
E-mailing evidence to the ArbCom is common, particularly with issues relating to real identities and similar. The ArbCom then makes the decision whether the other party needs to be told about it. All of that can be done without the material having to be posted publicly.
I find it odd that people are struggling to come up with examples of when a link to one of these toxic sites might be necessary. :-)
As you might imagine, I'm not. So far the best claim we have is if one of them ever becomes notable enough for an article, we would want to link to it in that article. Another claim was that it would be required for an ArbCom case, but that has been disputed. A third claim was that it might be required in cases where people have posted to these sites, and are now running for Wikipedia offices. That seems to be it so far.
jayjg wrote:
A third claim was that it might be required in cases where people have posted to these sites, and are now running for Wikipedia offices. That seems to be it so far.
By the way, I was not being speculative. This has actually happened before, although BADSITES hadn't yet crept up.
Werdna was up for his second RFA, and someone questioned him about an IRC log that was available on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and provided a link to a google search which turned the log up in the first hit.
This was reverted with [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO]] as the justification, with much unnecessary drama ensuing. All of this could have been avoided if people just used common sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Werdna_2
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
With the latter, all we'd have to do is e-mail the link, or a screenshot of the post, to the ArbCom.
Two problems:
- Screenshots are trivially easy to forge. AGF, and all, but no one should
trust screenshots in general.
Hmm. I don't think they're all that easy to forge, but...
- How would people be able to know what evidence was being presented
against them, to refute/endorse/comment on it, or for others to do so? Secret evidence?
As it happens, sometimes the ArbCom sees evidence that is not public.
Jay.
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
A link to whichever attack site we're discussing? Pretty remarkable if one turns up. A link to something that someone might construe as an attack site in the future for their own bizzare purposes? As we have seen, sadly, not improbable...
If we want to ban some sites, *say so*, name them and make it clear. As it is, "attack sites" is an invitation to querulous idiots.
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
A link to whichever attack site we're discussing? Pretty remarkable if one turns up. A link to something that someone might construe as an attack site in the future for their own bizzare purposes? As we have seen, sadly, not improbable...
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please give some specific examples, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the purpose of Talk: pages is to discuss article content, and that article content must comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].
Jay.
[oops, sent just to Jay first time]
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
A link to whichever attack site we're discussing? Pretty remarkable if one turns up. A link to something that someone might construe as an attack site in the future for their own bizzare purposes? As we have seen, sadly, not improbable...
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please give some specific examples, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the purpose of Talk: pages is to discuss article content, and that article content must comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].
I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through with a bit of noise.
Oh, no, someone decides it's an attack site. Remove all links, start threats for replacing them, vast amount of noise and fuss. ML is an extreme case - it's *obviously* a legitimate source - but I do wonder how many more cases of these would occur with a strongly worded "no attack sites" policy. After all, it's been - what, a month since we first threw this idea around as a general rule?
The controversy is colsing in on the two month mark.
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
[oops, sent just to Jay first time]
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
A link to whichever attack site we're discussing? Pretty remarkable if one turns up. A link to something that someone might construe as an attack site in the future for their own bizzare purposes? As we have seen, sadly, not improbable...
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please give some specific examples, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the purpose of Talk: pages is to discuss article content, and that article content must comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].
I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through with a bit of noise.
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments, though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to WR?
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please
I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through with a bit of noise.
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments, though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to WR?
"I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review.." was the first sentence in the comment you replied to. Does it become any more clear if I repeat it?
I. Am. Not. Saying. We. Should. Link. To. Wikipedia. Review.
I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review, we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with - because they can and will.
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please
I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through with a bit of noise.
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments, though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to WR?
"I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review.." was the first sentence in the comment you replied to. Does it become any more clear if I repeat it?
I. Am. Not. Saying. We. Should. Link. To. Wikipedia. Review.
Thanks, that's very clear, but I was challenging the claim that we might indeed want to link to WR, and you responded to that.
I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review, we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with - because they can and will.
People will always wikilawyer any rule, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. The remedy for wikilawyering is common sense, as always. Moreover, rules should be as general as possible; Wikipedia shouldn't have a policy about one specific item.
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review, we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with - because they can and will.
People will always wikilawyer any rule, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. The remedy for wikilawyering is common sense, as always. Moreover, rules should be as general as possible; Wikipedia shouldn't have a policy about one specific item.
Indeed. So why are you advocating it do so?
- d.
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review, we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with - because they can and will.
People will always wikilawyer any rule, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. The remedy for wikilawyering is common sense, as always. Moreover, rules should be as general as possible; Wikipedia shouldn't have a policy about one specific item.
Indeed. So why are you advocating it do so?
I'm not advocating anything. A claim was made that it might be beneficial to link to WR; I'm trying to see if that's true.
And here is the crux of the issue - jayjg is talking about using these so-called attack sites as reliable sources and external links. Slim Virgin is talking about them being inherent personal attacks. If they aren't reliable sources, write about them in the WP:RS policy. It doesn't belong in NPA if it is about their use in articles.
Risker.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review, we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with - because they can and will.
People will always wikilawyer any rule, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. The remedy for wikilawyering is common sense, as always. Moreover, rules should be as general as possible; Wikipedia shouldn't have a policy about one specific item.
Indeed. So why are you advocating it do so?
I'm not advocating anything. A claim was made that it might be beneficial to link to WR; I'm trying to see if that's true.
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 5/30/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
And here is the crux of the issue - jayjg is talking about using these so-called attack sites as reliable sources and external links. Slim Virgin is talking about them being inherent personal attacks.
I'm saying three things (1) there is never a good reason to link to one of these sites, so don't do it; (2) no matter what page you link to, there's likely to be a serious personal attack on it, because the particularly egregious sites are full of them; (3) that we shouldn't, as an encyclopedia, want to increase the readership of websites that seem devoted to encouraging stalking, harassment, "outing," and defamation.
All the opposing arguments I've seen so far boil down to wikilawyering, along the lines of "But we can't have that rule because one day the New York Times might publish a threat to stalk and harass a Wikipedian, and then we could never again use the New York Times as a source!!" or "But what if there's an ArbCom case about these sites, and what if no one could understand the evidence without seeing actual live links, and what if all the ArbCom members lost access to their e-mail accounts for the entirety of that case!!!"
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
All the opposing arguments I've seen so far boil down to wikilawyering, along the lines of... <snip>
Please see my last email with the three questions for you and Jay, which specifically addresses the poison pill/attack site pill that slipped into Gracenote's RFA and other recent ones.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Slim Virgin wrote:
I'm saying three things (1) there is never a good reason to link to one of these sites, so don't do it; (2) no matter what page you link to, there's likely to be a serious personal attack on it, because the particularly egregious sites are full of them; (3) that we shouldn't, as an encyclopedia, want to increase the readership of websites that seem devoted to encouraging stalking, harassment, "outing," and defamation.
(1) Nonsense. There are occasionally, albeit rarely, occasions where there is good reason to link to one of those sites. The litmus test should be, "Would removing this link stir up more drama than allowing it to remain?", because if the answer is yes, removing the link will actually draw more attention to the site. I've given quite a few examples of occasions where a link might be appropriate - again, it all depends on the content and the context of the link given. (2) Eh, not entirely. There are quite a few threads on Wikipedia Review which don't contain serious personal attacks. Admittedly, they are increasingly rare these days. (3) It should be noted that none of the sites mentioned actively support stalking, harassment, or defamation. Nonetheless, this concern is valid and reasonable, and by no means should Wikipedia be used to increase the readership of those sites. However, blind reversion of links /actually increases the readership of those sites/. Again, the litmus test should be "Would removing the link stir up more drama than allowing it to remain?" If the answer is yes, then removing the link is going to have the opposite effect than the one you desire.
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
I'm saying three things (1) there is never a good reason to link to one of these sites, so don't do it; (2) no matter what page you link to, there's likely to be a serious personal attack on it, because the particularly egregious sites are full of them; (3) that we shouldn't, as an encyclopedia, want to increase the readership of websites that seem devoted to encouraging stalking, harassment, "outing," and defamation.
(1) Nonsense. There are occasionally, albeit rarely, occasions where there is good reason to link to one of those sites. The litmus test should be, "Would removing this link stir up more drama than allowing it to remain?", because if the answer is yes, removing the link will actually draw more attention to the site. I've given quite a few examples of occasions where a link might be appropriate - again, it all depends on the content and the context of the link given.
No, the litmus test should be "does this link benefit Wikipedia in any way".. And the answer, as it turns out, is "almost never".
(2) Eh, not entirely. There are quite a few threads on Wikipedia Review which don't contain serious personal attacks. Admittedly, they are increasingly rare these days.
They always were rare.
(3) It should be noted that none of the sites mentioned actively support stalking, harassment, or defamation.
Aside from providing the venue for it and cheering on the perpetrators.
jayjg wrote:
No, the litmus test should be "does this link benefit Wikipedia in any way".. And the answer, as it turns out, is "almost never".
This is equally fair. Indeed, it's really a different wording of the same concept. If the link benefits Wikipedia in any way, it's pretty likely that removing it will stir up drama. And vice verse,
They always were rare.
Well, I have to grant that this is fairly legitimate. Despite my best efforts when I was an admin on that forum, it was next to impossible to keep a lid on things, and things have only gone downhill since. Nonetheless, there are a number of occasions where there are reasoned discussions that don't involve personal attacks
Aside from providing the venue for it and cheering on the perpetrators.
Harassment and stalking, no. That isn't cheered on in the slightest, and users who have been found to have engaged in it have been removed from the forum in the past. As for "defamation", I don't think that's really a valid concern regarding Wikipedia Review. There have been some nasty personal attacks, but nothing defamatory. Of course, other sites *do* engage in this practice.
On 30/05/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Aside from providing the venue for it and cheering on the perpetrators.
Harassment and stalking, no. That isn't cheered on in the slightest, and users who have been found to have engaged in it have been removed from the forum in the past.
Which is, of course, why Daniel Brandt is a respected poster on it. No, wait ...
- d.
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Which is, of course, why Daniel Brandt is a respected poster on it. No, wait ...
- d.
Brandt has been *accused* of harassment and stalking, but I think it's inappropriate to assert that this is what he is engaging in.
Really? How would you describe it then?
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Really? How would you describe it then?
Just a semantic point: is the collection and analysis of available information to find patterns in and of itself stalking? Wikipedians routinely track others' actions to find patterns, for sockpuppetry, conflicts of interest due to off-wiki activities, and other things, and it's totally acceptable. Isn't it? It seems like some people are upset that someone decided to put Wikipedia admins under the same scrutiny.
We're getting into who watches the watchers, in a sense.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Really? How would you describe it then?
Just a semantic point: is the collection and analysis of available information to find patterns in and of itself stalking?
When someone starts calling people they believe are your ex-colleagues, ex-schoolmates, and ex-boyfriends so that they can get a picture of you and try to find your current location, I think it's a bit more than "collection and analysis of available information to find patterns". Don't you?
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Just a semantic point: is the collection and analysis of available information to find patterns in and of itself stalking?
When someone starts calling people they believe are your ex-colleagues, ex-schoolmates, and ex-boyfriends so that they can get a picture of you and try to find your current location, I think it's a bit more than "collection and analysis of available information to find patterns". Don't you?
You didn't answer my question, did you? Leave virtual bread crumbs, it's no one's fault but the crumb-leaver if pieces get collected and figured out. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to police negligience. Specific to your question, which I'll answer:
Why is Brandt trying to track down Slim, is the better question. Answer (if I'm not mistaken): He's stated he intends to pursue her legally for whatever. That's not stalking. Maybe in her definition and yours, but not in any American legal system's that I know of. If he actually finds her, or whatever person he's after, and files suit (for something) is that stalking? Or serving legal process which he is entitled to in the country in which he lives?
Is it Wikipedia's job to protect people from being legally responsible for something they do on-wiki? You're completely twisting every scenario around, or rather weakly attempting to. If people did nothing wrong on-wiki, they would have nothing to worry about. Don't piss off people to win POV games, and no one will pursue you. You notice how many (if not most) Wikipedians play nice, play fair, play by the rules, and have public identities? How many of them are 'stalked'? Hm, curious, innit?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Just a semantic point: is the collection and analysis of available information to find patterns in and of itself stalking?
When someone starts calling people they believe are your ex-colleagues, ex-schoolmates, and ex-boyfriends so that they can get a picture of you and try to find your current location, I think it's a bit more than "collection and analysis of available information to find patterns". Don't you?
You didn't answer my question, did you? Leave virtual bread crumbs, it's no one's fault but the crumb-leaver if pieces get collected and figured out. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to police negligience. Specific to your question, which I'll answer:
Why is Brandt trying to track down Slim, is the better question. Answer (if I'm not mistaken): He's stated he intends to pursue her legally for whatever. That's not stalking.
That's nonsense. First, the only thing I published about Brandt was a brief and neutral stub, which after editing it with me he declared himself happy with. But when he said he didn't want any article at all, regardless of its content, I deleted it, because he and I were the only ones who had edited it at that point. So he has no case. If he ever thinks he's developed one, I can pass him the name of my lawyer.
More importantly, if he were simply trying to identify me for legal purposes, he'd have no need to speculate endlessly about me and insult me on various websites.
Joe, I have to say that you don't seem to know much about this situation and so I wish you'd stop posting about it. I don't mean that disrespectfully -- you're very wise not to want to know much about it -- but it's unhelpful to spread gossip that has no basis in fact.
Slim Virgin wrote:
Joe, I have to say that you don't seem to know much about this situation and so I wish you'd stop posting about it. I don't mean that disrespectfully -- you're very wise not to want to know much about it -- but it's unhelpful to spread gossip that has no basis in fact.
And also:
Try to stop blaming the people who are being attacked, and look at the viciousness of some of the material we're dealing with. It goes way, way beyond what anyone could call legitimate criticism.
Isn't that part of the problem with refusing to link to the problem material? Any opinions people have will be based on not knowing much.
I think it's reasonable that you try to suppress material that you don't like. Or I think it's reasonable to be upset with people for not taking the time to understand said material. But I don't understand, at least not yet, how you can reasonably do both. Could you clear that up for me?
Thanks,
William
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Just a semantic point: is the collection and analysis of available information to find patterns in and of itself stalking?
When someone starts calling people they believe are your ex-colleagues, ex-schoolmates, and ex-boyfriends so that they can get a picture of you and try to find your current location, I think it's a bit more than "collection and analysis of available information to find patterns". Don't you?
You didn't answer my question, did you?
Why would I answer an irrelevant question?
Leave virtual bread crumbs, it's no one's fault but the crumb-leaver if pieces get collected and figured out.
Wow, that's so passive. It all just "happens" somehow, no-one need take any active role whatsoever.
It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to police negligience.
I'll keep your rather heartless POV in mind in future dealings with you.
Specific to your question, which I'll answer:
Why is Brandt trying to track down Slim, is the better question. Answer (if I'm not mistaken): He's stated he intends to pursue her legally for whatever.
I don't recall him ever stating that he intended to do so. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine whatever for, since SlimVirgin is one of the people who has worked hardest at getting his article deleted, from the very start. Actually deleted it, as I recall.
That's not stalking. Maybe in her definition and yours, but not in any American legal system's that I know of. If he actually finds her, or whatever person he's after, and files suit (for something) is that stalking? Or serving legal process which he is entitled to in the country in which he lives?
Wait a minute, first you invent a motive, and then you proceed on that basis? Perhaps a little fact-checking would be in order, before spinning whatever fantasies come to mind.
If people did nothing wrong on-wiki, they would have nothing to worry about. and no one will pursue you. You notice how many (if not most) Wikipedians play nice, play fair, play by the rules, and have public identities? How many of them are 'stalked'? Hm, curious, innit?
Next you'll be blaming rape on all those women who walk around dressed in "provocative" clothes.
We're talking about someone doing legal legitimate things, and to make such comments is well--inflammatory--.
If someone is being pursued in a criminal way, there are criminal remedies. (I recognize from my own experience that these do not always work, and that this is a situation no one wants to get it. I also realize that one can in practice harass somebody with threatened lawsuits.
It is nonetheless good not to escalate the rhetoric. DGG
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Just a semantic point: is the collection and analysis of available information to find patterns in and of itself stalking?
When someone starts calling people they believe are your ex-colleagues, ex-schoolmates, and ex-boyfriends so that they can get a picture of you and try to find your current location, I think it's a bit more than "collection and analysis of available information to find patterns". Don't you?
You didn't answer my question, did you?
Why would I answer an irrelevant question?
Leave virtual bread crumbs, it's no one's fault but the crumb-leaver if pieces get collected and figured out.
Wow, that's so passive. It all just "happens" somehow, no-one need take any active role whatsoever.
It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to police negligience.
I'll keep your rather heartless POV in mind in future dealings with you.
Specific to your question, which I'll answer:
Why is Brandt trying to track down Slim, is the better question. Answer (if I'm not mistaken): He's stated he intends to pursue her legally for whatever.
I don't recall him ever stating that he intended to do so. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine whatever for, since SlimVirgin is one of the people who has worked hardest at getting his article deleted, from the very start. Actually deleted it, as I recall.
That's not stalking. Maybe in her definition and yours, but not in any American legal system's that I know of. If he actually finds her, or whatever person he's after, and files suit (for something) is that stalking? Or serving legal process which he is entitled to in the country in which he lives?
Wait a minute, first you invent a motive, and then you proceed on that basis? Perhaps a little fact-checking would be in order, before spinning whatever fantasies come to mind.
If people did nothing wrong on-wiki, they would have nothing to worry about. and no one will pursue you. You notice how many (if not most) Wikipedians play nice, play fair, play by the rules, and have public identities? How many of them are 'stalked'? Hm, curious, innit?
Next you'll be blaming rape on all those women who walk around dressed in "provocative" clothes.
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 5/31/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about someone doing legal legitimate things, and to make such comments is well--inflammatory--.
"Legitimate things"? Tracking down what you believe are someone's ex-boyfriends and ex-work colleagues in order to get pictures of them, because you claim to have a beef with a website for which they do volunteer work, is a "legitimate thing? In what universe?
It is nonetheless good not to escalate the rhetoric. DGG
You're a dollar short and a day late; you should have stepped in when Joe first started ranting and insulting.
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
No, the litmus test should be "does this link benefit Wikipedia in any way".. And the answer, as it turns out, is "almost never".
This is equally fair. Indeed, it's really a different wording of the same concept. If the link benefits Wikipedia in any way, it's pretty likely that removing it will stir up drama. And vice verse,
Well, except for the fact all the trolls etc. that cry "censorship" the second you delete something that is *not* benefiting Wikipedia.
They always were rare.
Well, I have to grant that this is fairly legitimate. Despite my best efforts when I was an admin on that forum, it was next to impossible to keep a lid on things, and things have only gone downhill since.
Actually, it's not very hard to keep a forum civil. Set up proper rules, delete posts that contravene them, and ban repeat offenders.
Nonetheless, there are a number of occasions where there are reasoned discussions that don't involve personal attacks
It's like panning a thousand tons of ore by hand to find one speck of gold.
Aside from providing the venue for it and cheering on the perpetrators.
Harassment and stalking, no. That isn't cheered on in the slightest, and users who have been found to have engaged in it have been removed from the forum in the past.
Hmm, hypothetically speaking, if someone started trying to get in touch with what he believed were past work colleagues, boyfriends, family of boyfriends, etc. of a Wikipedia editor, would he be banned for harassment and stalking, or would he be lauded as perhaps the most respected member of the forum?
As for "defamation", I don't think that's really a valid concern regarding Wikipedia Review. There have been some nasty personal attacks, but nothing defamatory. Of course, other sites *do* engage in this practice.
Here's another hypothetical question; if WR were posting what it thought was the real name of a Wikipedia editor, and further asserting that that person was a CIA spy, mentally unbalanced, and various other similar claims, would you consider that "defamatory"? Or do WR posters have a unique definition of defamatory that ends with "...except when it's about Wikipedia editors, then anything goes."
jayjg wrote:
Well, except for the fact all the trolls etc. that cry "censorship" the second you delete something that is *not* benefiting Wikipedia.
Trolls are easy to spot and deal with. And they aren't the ones that are stirring up the drama. It's the well-intentioned good-faith editors that are doing that.
Actually, it's not very hard to keep a forum civil. Set up proper rules, delete posts that contravene them, and ban repeat offenders.
Try performing that when the higher-up overrules you whenever she feels like it. Selina was set up as root admin, and because of that, it was *hell* to keep a lid on anything.
It's like panning a thousand tons of ore by hand to find one speck of gold.
That's a considerable exaggeration.
Here's another hypothetical question; if WR were posting what it thought was the real name of a Wikipedia editor, and further asserting that that person was a CIA spy, mentally unbalanced, and various other similar claims, would you consider that "defamatory"? Or do WR posters have a unique definition of defamatory that ends with "...except when it's about Wikipedia editors, then anything goes."
There's a difference between saying "So-and-so is a CIA spy" and "I think it possible that so-and-so is a CIA spy". Both are batshit insane commentary, but only one is truly defamatory.
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Here's another hypothetical question; if WR were posting what it thought was the real name of a Wikipedia editor, and further asserting that that person was a CIA spy, mentally unbalanced, and various other similar claims, would you consider that "defamatory"? Or do WR posters have a unique definition of defamatory that ends with "...except when it's about Wikipedia editors, then anything goes."
There's a difference between saying "So-and-so is a CIA spy" and "I think it possible that so-and-so is a CIA spy". Both are batshit insane commentary, but only one is truly defamatory.
Wrapping some weasel words around defamation doesn't stop it from being defamatory. Saying "it appears that this person was a CIA agent" is the same as saying that they are one.
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Here's another hypothetical question; if WR were posting what it thought was the real name of a Wikipedia editor, and further asserting that that person was a CIA spy, mentally unbalanced, and various other similar claims, would you consider that "defamatory"? Or do WR posters have a unique definition of defamatory that ends with "...except when it's about Wikipedia editors, then anything goes."
There's a difference between saying "So-and-so is a CIA spy" and "I think it possible that so-and-so is a CIA spy". Both are batshit insane commentary, but only one is truly defamatory.
Wrapping some weasel words around defamation doesn't stop it from being defamatory. Saying "it appears that this person was a CIA agent" is the same as saying that they are one.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, legally, it's not. I can say "I think John Doe acts a lot like a serial killer", and that's an expression of my personal opinion. On the other hand, if I say "John Doe is a serial killer", and there's nothing to back that up, I've just defamed him.
Now, of course, in terms of on Wikipedia, regardless of the legalities, we should never accept any such edit without very reliable sourcing. But legally, there -is- a difference between presenting something as fact and presenting it as opinion. Also, one can present a fact ("John Doe has been indicted for the murder of Jack Crack") which if it were stated differently would be quite possibly libelous ("John Doe murdered Jack Crack", if in reality he's only been indicted but not convicted.) It's possible to say something very nasty and still not have it be legally libel or slander.
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
I'm saying three things (1) there is never a good reason to link to one of these sites, so don't do it; (2) no matter what page you link to, there's likely to be a serious personal attack on it, because the particularly egregious sites are full of them; (3) that we shouldn't, as an encyclopedia, want to increase the readership of websites that seem devoted to encouraging stalking, harassment, "outing," and defamation.
All the opposing arguments I've seen so far boil down to wikilawyering, along the lines of "But we can't have that rule because one day the New York Times might publish a threat to stalk and harass a Wikipedian, and then we could never again use the New York Times as a source!!" or "But what if there's an ArbCom case about these sites, and what if no one could understand the evidence without seeing actual live links, and what if all the ArbCom members lost access to their e-mail accounts for the entirety of that case!!!"
If you say words like "never", you invite this so-called Wikilawyering. Telling you that "never" really should be "rarely" isn't Wikilawyering; it's pointing out that what you say doesn't make any sense.
Moreover, other uses have been pointed out to you, the most famous being the Wikipedia Signpost link and the links to attack sites in the talk page discussing the attack sites policy. These are not hypotheticals like the New York Times posting a threat; these have happened already! And the "no attack sites" crowd deleted the links blindly anyway.
It keeps coming back to two facts:
(1) External sites are going to criticize Wikipedia, and (2) Those sites aren't going to bind themselves to WIkipedia's rules.
It seems to me that almost anyone criticizing Wikipedia from outside is going to come upon cases where they will feel compelled to "out" some editor. The principle that real-life identity does not matter isn't generally accepted (in my opinion, because it isn't true), and situations will arise where critics will feel the need to demonstrate that it isn't true by unmasking an editor (see "Essjay controversy"). Those critics are also likely to have different notions of how to "decorously" discuss matters.
As a general principle Wikipedians are going to want to refer to such criticisms in discussion about how to improve Wikipedia. The erased link that brought me into this was made in exactly such a context. In this wise we seem to have a meta-policy here that Wikipedia can only be criticized on its own terms, which strikes me as a lame principle. As far as WR is concerned, a lot of what is said is rude, immature, and frankly incoherent. Nonetheless I have found it worthwhile to engage them. Anyone who has read TNH's commentary for long knows that it gets pretty pungent.
I see that there is now a better attempt being made to define what an attack site is. I'm not sure that this is going to work, because the threshold for what is an attack is being set quite low. But somehow it's going to be necessary to distinguish between criticism of Wikipedia and "attacks".
On 5/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
It keeps coming back to two facts:
(1) External sites are going to criticize Wikipedia, and (2) Those sites aren't going to bind themselves to WIkipedia's rules.
It seems to me that almost anyone criticizing Wikipedia from outside is going to come upon cases where they will feel compelled to "out" some editor. The principle that real-life identity does not matter isn't generally accepted (in my opinion, because it isn't true), and situations will arise where critics will feel the need to demonstrate that it isn't true by unmasking an editor (see "Essjay controversy"). Those critics are also likely to have different notions of how to "decorously" discuss matters.
Nonsense. The posters are disgruntled ex-Wikipedians, who couldn't abide by Wikipedia's rules, and now are looking to get back at those they feel wronged them. It has nothing to do with principles, or even compulsion, and everything to do with petty meanness. The hypocrisy of the vast majority of the posters, who insist that Wikipedia editors should not remain anonymous *while posting from pseudonymous accounts themselves*, is breathtaking.
As a general principle Wikipedians are going to want to refer to such criticisms in discussion about how to improve Wikipedia.
Uh, no, because there aren't any serious criticisms to be found. Whining, backbiting, attempts to out editors, spinning of increasingly absurd conspiracy theories, vulgarity, obscenities, vulgarities, and froth-mouthed cries of "abuse of admin tools" and "the cabal" aren't criticism.
The erased link that brought me into this was made in exactly such a context. In this wise we seem to have a meta-policy here that Wikipedia can only be criticized on its own terms, which strikes me as a lame principle. As far as WR is concerned, a lot of what is said is rude, immature, and frankly incoherent. Nonetheless I have found it worthwhile to engage them. Anyone who has read TNH's commentary for long knows that it gets pretty pungent.
TNH isn't an attack site. On the other hand, *your* favorite message board is.
I see that there is now a better attempt being made to define what an attack site is. I'm not sure that this is going to work, because the threshold for what is an attack is being set quite low. But somehow it's going to be necessary to distinguish between criticism of Wikipedia and "attacks".
WR is a site that contains "criticism of Wikipedia" in the same way that Jew Watch is a site that contains "Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History" and "Focuses on Professionalism". In the real world these things aren't so gray, though I understand your interest in obfuscating them.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The hypocrisy of the vast majority of the posters, who insist that Wikipedia editors should not remain anonymous *while posting from pseudonymous accounts themselves*, is breathtaking.
May be it would be, were it there at all. I don't share Daniel Brandt's extreme views on exposing people, but I don't think there's much point in trying to engage him over it either. I'm not opposed to anonymity, but I know that it isn't a right either. I'm getting a little ticked at the way you misrepresent me here.
Uh, no, because there aren't any serious criticisms to be found.
Your opinion, but not mine-- which is not to say I think that discussion there is uniformly or perhaps even commonly of high quality.
TNH isn't an attack site. On the other hand, *your* favorite message board is.
THAT was way out of line. You have no idea what my favorite board is (hint: it has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia). You want hypocrisy? Hold your post up to a mirror.
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review, we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with - because they can and will.
People will always wikilawyer any rule, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. The remedy for wikilawyering is common sense, as always. Moreover, rules should be as general as possible; Wikipedia shouldn't have a policy about one specific item.
We have a situation where the problem is with a couple of specific sites. We have people wanting to ban linking to those sites. Every discussion involved seems to be about those two sites.
This is a perfect example of when it makes sense to be specific.
When we want to make a rule to deal with a specific thing, we should be specific. Writing it in general terms, whilst everyone involved knows and understands we're talking about one specific thing, is just silly - are we doing it so it looks better? Far better we state clearly up front what we're talking about than leaving it be and hoping everyone Understands The Unwritten Meaning two or three years down the line.
Otherwise, we just get another Making Light farce each and every month, as one of our less cool-headed idiots gets in a fight with someone else on a comment thread buried deep somewhere on a site, then decides - oh no! attack site!
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review, we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with - because they can and will.
People will always wikilawyer any rule, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. The remedy for wikilawyering is common sense, as always. Moreover, rules should be as general as possible; Wikipedia shouldn't have a policy about one specific item.
We have a situation where the problem is with a couple of specific sites. We have people wanting to ban linking to those sites. Every discussion involved seems to be about those two sites.
Well, there are a couple of pretty egregious offenders, that's true. But that's not really the point.
On 30/05/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review.." was the first sentence in the comment you replied to. Does it become any more clear if I repeat it? I. Am. Not. Saying. We. Should. Link. To. Wikipedia. Review. I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review, we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with - because they can and will.
More importantly: because they can, will, do and have. Having such a rule at all is clearly far too great an incitement to blithering stupidity to allow it to exist. Those advocating it are consistently failing to acknowledge that all actual application of it has been *utterly idiotic*.
- d.
jayjg schreef:
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments, though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to WR?
If that's the source for a claim in on of our articles?
To name one concrete example: our [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] contains a rather short paragraph on "Copyright issues" containing weasel words like "A significant number of people... have comment that... some articles are copyright violations." This claim is entirely unsourced (the cited source only speaks about our problem with images).
The only attempt of a numerical study of our copyright problem that I know of, was the one published by Daniel Brandt ("1 to 2 % of biographies on wikipedia are plagiarized"). This would be a good addition to the article, but it would need a link to Brandt's website (wikipedia-watch), which is the only place that the methodology of the study is described.
(I presume wikipedia-watch is on your short list of attack sites; if not: what if he had published the results on WR? DB is a frequent contributor.)
Eugene
On 5/30/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
jayjg schreef:
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments, though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to WR?
If that's the source for a claim in on of our articles?
But it can't be, because it's not a reliable source.
To name one concrete example: our [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] contains a rather short paragraph on "Copyright issues" containing weasel words like "A significant number of people... have comment that... some articles are copyright violations." This claim is entirely unsourced (the cited source only speaks about our problem with images).
From what I can tell, far too much of that article consists of
Original Research based on non-reliable sources or none at all. The fact that somebody posts something critical of Wikipedia on a website doesn't mean its suitable for inclusion in this article.
The only attempt of a numerical study of our copyright problem that I know of, was the one published by Daniel Brandt ("1 to 2 % of biographies on wikipedia are plagiarized"). This would be a good addition to the article, but it would need a link to Brandt's website (wikipedia-watch), which is the only place that the methodology of the study is described.
No, it would be a terrible addition to the article, because it wouldn't comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].
(I presume wikipedia-watch is on your short list of attack sites; if not: what if he had published the results on WR? DB is a frequent contributor.)
It would be the same. People can publish anything they like on their personal websites, blogs, message boards - and they do. Very little of it can be put into Wikipedia articles, because it doesn't comply with WP:V and WP:RS.
Jay.
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
A link to whichever attack site we're discussing? Pretty remarkable if one turns up. A link to something that someone might construe as an attack site in the future for their own bizzare purposes? As we have seen, sadly, not improbable...
I'm not sure what you're saying.
I'd say it was pretty blindingly obvious that he means that someone attempted to scour nielsenhayden.com from the encyclopedia claiming it was an "attack site", and that this behaviour is really not acceptable; and, from this, that policies or alleged policies that make this seem a good idea are to be regarded with deep suspicion.
- d.
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please give some specific examples, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the purpose of Talk: pages is to discuss article content, and that article content must comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].
Talk pages must discuss article content, and article content must comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]], but it does not follow that talk pages must comply with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. That's not a syllogism. The article content produced by talk page discussion must comply with those policies; but the talk page itself doesn't.
By your reasoning, if we decide that something is a reliable source and say so on the talk page, we need a reliable source for the claim that it's a reliable source.
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
If we want to ban some sites, *say so*, name them and make it clear. As it is, "attack sites" is an invitation to querulous idiots.
The problem also potentially is that while some people consider a given site an attack site, others do not. In some cases, they may universally agree. In others, there may be a small group of extremists who label a given site one way or the other. Who is right? The loudest, most vocal group? Creating an actual list of sites that are agreed upon by people as a sort of "do not link/do not fly" list would be *simplest*, if possible, but then that also means that you need to label and link them somewhere were people can point to and say, "This is listed here, don't link to it". It's a catch-22 all around.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
jayjg wrote:
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Let's suppose there was an RFA candidate who had posted to one of the aforementioned sites some questionable material. Would it not be beneficial to the product to point this out, and would, in some such circumstances, a link be necessary? And don't forgot my ArbCom case/lynching. Do you seriously mean to imply that it was absolutely wrong of the arbitration circlejerk to link to an alleged personal attack I made against you that was posted on that forum?
There may be other occasions, not related to bad-faith or questionable actions on the part of people, where a link may be beneficial for the purpose of discussion. While I can't exactly think of an examples, such a situation certainly could appear.
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Let's suppose there was an RFA candidate who had posted to one of the aforementioned sites some questionable material. Would it not be beneficial to the product to point this out, and would, in some such circumstances, a link be necessary?
O.K., so now we have a third case; in the event that someone has posted something horrible on WR (a highly likely possibility), and they are also running for something on Wikipedia (like adminship), you think it would be beneficial to link to that awful post.
There may be other occasions, not related to bad-faith or questionable actions on the part of people, where a link may be beneficial for the purpose of discussion. While I can't exactly think of an examples, such a situation certainly could appear.
"While I can't exactly think of an example" - aye, there's the rub. It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
Indeed, there are at best 5-7 total 'attack sites'. So few, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
Why not just list them at BADSITES as a "do not link list"? If the *community* agrees on an entry, hey, cool, don't link it. If not, well, the community has decided, right? Unless very small minorities on-wiki get to decide they know better than everyone else and try to policy wonk or game their way to their ends. But that would be wrong, no? ;)
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just list them at BADSITES as a "do not link list"? If the *community* agrees on an entry, hey, cool, don't link it. If not, well, the community has decided, right? Unless very small minorities on-wiki get to decide they know better than everyone else and try to policy wonk or game their way to their ends. But that would be wrong, no? ;)
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review. Mango, for example, posts as Papaya. Should the people who keep these sites going be the ones to decide our policy on linking to them?
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just list them at BADSITES as a "do not link list"? If the *community* agrees on an entry, hey, cool, don't link it. If not, well, the community has decided, right? Unless very small minorities on-wiki get to decide they know better than everyone else and try to policy wonk or game their way to their ends. But that would be wrong, no? ;)
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review. Mango, for example, posts as Papaya. Should the people who keep these sites going be the ones to decide our policy on linking to them?
Far better it be decided by people who remove links to nielsenhayden.com instead on the pretext that it is an "attack site."
That is: the pretext that "attack site" links can be summarily removed has, in itself, been used by an admin to cause actual damage to the encyclopedia itself.
That is clear evidence that even having such an idea floating around is damaging to the encyclopedia, and why the notion that such a pretext exists must be quashed.
- d.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review. Mango, for example, posts as Papaya. Should the people who keep these sites going be the ones to decide our policy on linking to them?
From a simple COI/common sense perspective, who gets to decide, then? You're
hardly a neutral party yourself (no offense). From the currently-an-outsider perspective, I'm fairly neutral, and am with David and others: common sense good, guillotine bad.
Who should decide, do you think, on something like this, if not the wider community? I
'm curious to hear what you honestly feel on that (and anyone else--chime in). Do some people get more weight or value to their voices? I do sympathize with the shit you take on there, and ditto for anyone else. People get angry, and have what they perceive as a beef, and vocalize it in both negative and at times positive ways. The problem is this has become a political issue now, no matter how people paint it. It's not about outing, or attacks, it's become an us vs. them mentality on both sides of the wall.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Well, I don't post there, and have only read there occasionally - and I have been involved in this discussion as long as you have, Slim. And no, I do not think there should be a BADSITES list, or any site that is absolutely verboten - because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we have no idea what will happen days, months or years down the road.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how a link to a site is, by itself, a personal attack. The links themselves are not the attacks - it is the content and the context that render ANY link (whether to WR or Urban Dictionary or even a WP page) into an attack. And there is not one person who has worked on the NPA policy who disagrees with this principle. So why, exactly, are entire sitebans being discussed in NPA instead of WP:EL? Why is this not on BADSITES or whatever other shortcut name someone wants to give that failed policy?
Here's the hint - if one has to stick a principle ("don't link to attack sites or else") into a policy that has nothing to do with external links, because there is no other existing, supported policy into which it will fit, either draft the policy and seek community support or accept that the principle is not supported.
(As an aside, Slim Virgin, if anyone posted a link to WR in response to a post you made or onto your user page, I think that it should be considered a personal attack and treated as such. Not even a complete idiot could miss the genuine nastiness directed toward you on that site. )
Risker
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just list them at BADSITES as a "do not link list"? If the *community* agrees on an entry, hey, cool, don't link it. If not, well,
the
community has decided, right? Unless very small minorities on-wiki get
to
decide they know better than everyone else and try to policy wonk or
game
their way to their ends. But that would be wrong, no? ;)
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review. Mango, for example, posts as Papaya. Should the people who keep these sites going be the ones to decide our policy on linking to them?
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 Wed, 30 May 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review. Mango, for example, posts as Papaya. Should the people who keep these sites going be the ones to decide our policy on linking to them?
"Some" is known as "weasel words" when used on Wikipedia itself.
I'm not a poster to WR, as you should know by now, since I've mentioned it here before.
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review. Mango, for example, posts as Papaya. Should the people who keep these sites going be the ones to decide our policy on linking to them?
Well, that makes about as much sense as rhetorically asking whether the people whom these sites criticize should be deciding our policy on linking to them.
I'm not THAT willing to defend WR. It's not all that good, a lot of the time, but it also isn't as bad as various people keep claiming. But nobody has come up with a formula that hasn't been an open invitation to erase links to all manner of criticism, because there's always someone for whom "criticism" = "personal attack". Now Encyclopedia Dramatica: I can see just semi-mechanically deleting links to it. But it's a matter of degree.
On 5/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review. Mango, for example, posts as Papaya. Should the people who keep these sites going be the ones to decide our policy on linking to them?
Well, that makes about as much sense as rhetorically asking whether the people whom these sites criticize should be deciding our policy on linking to them.
I'm not THAT willing to defend WR. It's not all that good, a lot of the time, but it also isn't as bad as various people keep claiming.
It's extremely difficult for me to assume good faith of you in this discussion. You recently posted to Wikipedia and to Wikipedia Review a post you found on some discussion board, purporting to be from "SlimVirgin," where I supposedly invited animal rights supporters to come to Wikipedia surreptitiously, so that a bunch of us (we who are already embedded!) would make sure the new arrivals got adminship, because "we own" Wikipedia and we want to subvert articles about AR. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Not...
As if the gross assumption of bad faith and stupidity wasn't enough, you said you'd found the post while searching around Google looking for my identity.
This is the kind of bullshit behavior that we don't want to encourage, because it has *nothing* to do with writing an encyclopedia, and *everything* to do with trying to upset the people who do.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This is the kind of bullshit behavior that we don't want to encourage, because it has *nothing* to do with writing an encyclopedia, and *everything* to do with trying to upset the people who do.
Kettle:black. Bullshit behavior is anything beyond writing content for article space, anything else--pushing your POV, tracking "LaRouchies" or whatever, is bulltshit behavior. I think a great many people involved in all the stupid games long ago missed the point. Wikipedia is about making a free encyclopedia, free of any POV. If people aren't adding content as their first and major priority, free of personal bias, get the fuck off of Wikipedia before it breaks even more.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
You got a personal apology on your talk page for that, SV. I jumped to what was most likely a wrong conclusion, and I'm sorry I did it. I had them move the thread into the hidden part of WR so that the accusation isn't visible to the public. If we're going to go the "I have a hard time assuming good faith" route, everything is going to go up in flames here.
BUt then, assuming good faith is already in tatters here. There are simply too many theories bouncing around as to why people are doing what they're doing for there to be much good faith here, with the "DennyColt was a sockpuppet for the Bad Guys" theory serving as the jewel in the crown. Apparent COIs are a dime a dozen, and characterization of the WR membership has been pretty much one long personal attack. Discussion of that site is so tainted that there is no way to come up with a good basis for policy using it.
G'day The Mangoe,
You got a personal apology on your talk page for that, SV. I jumped to what was most likely a wrong conclusion, and I'm sorry I did it. I had them move the thread into the hidden part of WR so that the accusation isn't visible to the public. If we're going to go the "I have a hard time assuming good faith" route, everything is going to go up in flames here.
If you don't already help out at Wikipedia that's a great place to meet up. We have controlled animal rights articles there for several years, but the project is always expanding and we always need people to make sure new peripheral articles are slanted our way.
You read that, and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on SlimVirgin. The problem there is not that you need to apologise to Sarah (though you do); it's that ... *you read that and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on SlimVirgin*.
There have been many complaints about SlimVirgin colluding with other users and particularly administrators. I do not know whether they are true. However, this post seems to me to have the character of a smoking gun. Mangoe 13:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Smoking gun, or smirking gnu?
Oh, and you came across it while trying to work out SlimVirgin's true identity, even though she's made it plain that she wants to remain anonymous (ish). Apart from any other concerns, this is simply really freakin' impolite.
And then we get to the other concerns. Such as: what exactly did you hope to achieve by discovering SV's identity? Was it just to prove how easy it is? If so, what does that prove? If you hope to assert that, if an anonymous person leaves "breadcrumbs" and unwittingly makes it easy for the likes of you to expose her: congratulations, you've just fit neatly into Jayjg's comparison with rape victims who are trivialised because they wore skimpy clothing.
And: what on Earth made you think it was ever appropriate for you to go looking for information to expose a Wikipedia editor --- or any anonymous person --- just for kicks? What made you think this *wouldn't* be exceptionally creepy? Really?
BUt then, assuming good faith is already in tatters here. There are
What's in tatters is your credibility. You actually believed that the poster in that case was SlimVirgin! My goodness! That incident alone should have had you blushing so much the neighbours called the fire brigade!
simply too many theories bouncing around as to why people are doing what they're doing for there to be much good faith here, with the "DennyColt was a sockpuppet for the Bad Guys" theory serving as the jewel in the crown. Apparent COIs are a dime a dozen, and characterization of the WR membership has been pretty much one long personal attack. Discussion of that site is so tainted that there is no way to come up with a good basis for policy using it.
This is the site that welcomed AMorrow with open arms. This is the site that Daniel Brandt regularly contributes to. This is the site that organised severe harrassment of Phil Sandifer, then lied about their motives. This is the site that drove Katefan0, *an admin who even they couldn't fault*, away from Wikipedia out of pure meanness of spirit. This is the site where, when a board administrator mentioned that revealing personal information was frowned-upon, the rest told that fellow: "Speak for yourself."
Wikipedia Review, in theory, could turn out not to be a cesspool. In theory, it could even be a reasonable, useful, intelligent forum. Many WR posters are very intelligent; some of them are even sane. Skyring is one obvious example of a reasonable poster, as is Blu Ardvaark (when he's on his meds), and I assume you, sir, would like to claim that title as well. But having one or two reasonable members is nothing to boast about, when the overall site and tone of the site is so filthy.
The actions I've mentioned above (and the dozens I'm not aware of) cannot be hidden away, or "explained" with handwaving and lies. Wikipedia Review cannot pretend they never happened, and cannot pretend they were reasonable. What they can say is: We've changed. We're not the same forum that did those things. We're sorry. They will not happen again. In the future, we will confine ourselves to legitimate criticism and the occasional fart joke[0].
What they --- you --- cannot say is: It's not a big deal. We're not as bad as you think. We were never as bad as you think. Anyway, those admins deserved everything they got. And our motives were pure as the driven snow, just ask us.
You cannot say this because it's not true. Because you're liars. And because we know you are liars. If you continue lying, we will find it very difficult to believe that you are better than we think you are. Do you know why this is? I'll tell you why.
It's because you're liars.
[0] Every forum needs some release ...
On 5/31/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
You read that, and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on SlimVirgin. The problem there is not that you need to apologise to Sarah (though you do); it's that ... *you read that and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on SlimVirgin*.
Well, you seem to have concluded that you have scored a "king-hit" on me. But (as seems to be the routine irony) you have committed the same sin that I did: you've jumped to a conclusion based on your preconceptions. If you had followed the thread on WR about the incident, you would have seen that the WR-ites didn't think that SV wrote the smoking gun passage.
Which leads us to the three backstories here. One is the paranoia. "Assume Good Faith" is a dead letter in this controversy, paid lip service only when suspicions are voiced against oneself. It's particularly noticeable in the constant claims that so-and-so relative newbie "knows too much not to be a socpuppet." I've gone back and looked at DennyColt's first edits, and at mine. They aren't that radically different. This business of looking at edit patterns is simply too much of a witch hunt, and rather too much like thorwing them in the river to see if they float.
The second is that it is obviously OK to make personal attacks on people who aren't editors, and therefore seems to have become OK to attack editors who show any sympathy for those attacked. That's in line with the recent line in BLP that Wikipedia has no moral obligation to the subjects of its biographies, but it's repugnant and hypocritical.
The third is the big one: the politics. Many, many people look upon Wikipedia as an object example of "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" (or "Lord of the Flies", if you prefer the monosyllabic version), and in my opinion, they're right. I started by editing in some very controversial topics, and I gave it up. There's too much ownership by interest groups and partisans, and it's like to trying to shingle a roof in a hurricane to make anything but trivial copyedits stick. These days I'm wont to presume that anyone who persists in those topics over the long term has either an agenda or a personality defect, but that is just my own extremely hardened and cynical bias. Anyway, there are obvious factions in this dispute, but it seems to me that I'm more in the cat-herd of Dan Tobias, Ken Arromdee, Badlydrawnjeff, et al.
Jayjg's "rape victim" line was posturing. Nobody is being raped, and the only stalking I have seen evidence of in the present is the mass banning of a long list of accused sockpuppets. These days, I hardly trust anyone in this, except for some of the other members of the cat-herd-- and at that, the reason I trust them is that they seem incapable of making alliances or otherwise competently participating in politics. (Sorry guys, but that's how I see it.) What's particularly ironic is that of late I've found myself in common cause with SlimVirgin on several issues (e.g. the rolling of single incident BLPs into the incident article, which I think is an excellent policy). Nor would I argue for a mass amnesty for the WR-ites-- heck, there's a couple I wish the WR admins would ban from their own site. The thing is, the political need to assign me to a faction has overwhelmed the facts, just as it occaisionally does for Dan Tobias, who is from time to time lumped with the WR-ites in utter disregard for his near-contempt for them.
I don't know who you are, Mr. Gallagher, but if you are really a student in Canberra, I was participating in on-line discussion about the time you were *born*. You are hardly the first person to call me names.
G'day The Mangoe,
On 5/31/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
You read that, and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on SlimVirgin. The problem there is not that you need to apologise to Sarah (though you do); it's that ... *you read that and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on SlimVirgin*.
Well, you seem to have concluded that you have scored a "king-hit" on me. But (as seems to be the routine irony) you have committed the same sin that I did: you've jumped to a conclusion based on your preconceptions. If you had followed the thread on WR about the incident, you would have seen that the WR-ites didn't think that SV wrote the smoking gun passage.
I never said that the WR-ites thought SV wrote the "smoking gun" passage. I said that *you did*. Is it fair to say that you did, indeed, believe that SV was responsible for the offending passage?
Which leads us to the three backstories here. One is the paranoia. "Assume Good Faith" is a dead letter in this controversy, paid lip service only when suspicions are voiced against oneself. It's particularly noticeable in the constant claims that so-and-so relative newbie "knows too much not to be a socpuppet." I've gone back and looked at DennyColt's first edits, and at mine. They aren't that radically different. This business of looking at edit patterns is simply too much of a witch hunt, and rather too much like thorwing them in the river to see if they float.
I don't intend to comment on DennyColt's suitability as a sockpuppet candidate, nor yours, but I do agree that simply examining someone's edit patterns is a subjective test, and often not a particularly useful one.
The second is that it is obviously OK to make personal attacks on people who aren't editors, and therefore seems to have become OK to attack editors who show any sympathy for those attacked. That's in line with the recent line in BLP that Wikipedia has no moral obligation to the subjects of its biographies, but it's repugnant and hypocritical.
"No personal attacks" does not exist because it's morally wrong to make personal attacks (it may be, or it may not be). We have a policy against personal attacks because we recognise that allowing them on-wiki leads to a poisonous editing environment.
If I call you a dickhead on-wiki, I'm violating "No personal attacks". If I say on the mailing list that people who enthuse about WR are suspect, because WR is terrible for so many reasons, then I may or may not be making a personal attack --- but I'm not violating any Wikipedia policy. It's not hypocritical to adjust your norms depending on your environment, any more than it is to fart while alone even if you'd never dream of doing it in front of the Queen.
The third is the big one: the politics. Many, many people look upon Wikipedia as an object example of "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" (or "Lord of the Flies", if you prefer the monosyllabic version), and in my opinion, they're right. I started by editing in some very
I understand both references, but I appreciate the effort you've made to ensure I don't miss the point. Thank you.
And I do agree with you about the Tyranny of Structurelessness; all it means is that the powers-that-be are hidden from view, unknown, perhaps even to themselves. And nobody is accountable. This is a constant risk on Wikipedia, and there are parts of the project that have already succumbed.
And no, I don't tend to wade into controversial articles, either.
<snip/>
Jayjg's "rape victim" line was posturing. Nobody is being raped, and the only stalking I have seen evidence of in the present is the mass banning of a long list of accused sockpuppets. These days, I hardly
That, and your own checking through to see who SlimVirgin is, and informing her of that fact ... were you surprised to find that this annoyed her?
My understanding is that Jayjg's "rape victim" analogy was made in reply to a comment that anyone who is outed online deserves it, because she should have been more careful about leaving "breadcrumbs" out there. In that context, it's quite apt. It's simply taking a disgusting comment, and making it clear to all involved just why it is disgusting.
If he's spread out to start comparing outing to rape, then, sure, start complaining about his hyperbole. Otherwise, well, try not to make any "she deserved it really"-type comments and it shouldn't affect you. So far I haven't noticed you saying anything of the sort.
<snip/>
Nor would I argue for a mass amnesty for the WR-ites-- heck, there's a couple I wish the WR admins would ban from their own site. The thing is, the political need to assign me to a faction has overwhelmed the facts, just as it occaisionally does for Dan Tobias, who is from time to time lumped with the WR-ites in utter disregard for his near-contempt for them.
I don't recall saying that individual WR-ites are scum because they contribute to WR. In the very post you reply to here, I said that some individual WR-ites are quite reasonable. I listed three, because I only know of three, but I concede there may be more.
I mentioned those offences WR have committed, those I know about. I mentioned the unwillingness of even the reasonable WR-ites to agree that these offences were Bad Things. I didn't categorise you, I simply created a category. If you choose to place yourself inside it, that's your look-out.
I don't know who you are, Mr. Gallagher, but if you are really a student in Canberra, I was participating in on-line discussion about the time you were *born*. You are hardly the first person to call me names.
Well, being a student in Canberra doesn't necessarily make me a youngster[0]. It doesn't matter, though, since, as you have undoubtedly discovered by now, I am spoofing my email account, and am really a blue-rinsed grandmother living out her days in a council flat in Essex.
I remember walking ten miles uphill through the snow to revert Kibo vandalism with punch cards ...
[0] Many of my classmates, if I had classmates, are/would be in their fifties and sixties. It's almost inspiring.
On 6/11/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Jayjg's "rape victim" line was posturing. Nobody is being raped, and the only stalking I have seen evidence of in the present is the mass banning of a long list of accused sockpuppets. These days, I hardly
That, and your own checking through to see who SlimVirgin is, and informing her of that fact ... were you surprised to find that this annoyed her?
My understanding is that Jayjg's "rape victim" analogy was made in reply to a comment that anyone who is outed online deserves it, because she should have been more careful about leaving "breadcrumbs" out there. In that context, it's quite apt. It's simply taking a disgusting comment, and making it clear to all involved just why it is disgusting.
Exactly.
Mr. Gallagher, I see my syntax was slightly ambiguous. Initially I did believe that the passage was authentic. Consultation with the WR-ites revealed that they thought it was not. I had them move the thread into the closed subforum so as to eliminate the (likely mistaken) allegation out of public view, and I left an apology with SV.
The reason, of course, that personal attacks lead to a "poisonous editing environment" is because people understand that such attacks are immoral-- at least when they themselves are the target-- and therefore have moral reactions against them. Interpersonal behavior on Wikipedia is still interpersonal behavior in the world at large. I don't see that assessment of WR is of itself a personal attack, nor is assessment of Wikipedia on WR necessarily personal attacks on editors, either generally or in specific cases. Now, the WR-ites have grievances against specific editors. They are not all that well-behaved there about it, so what they say is a mixture of credible and dubious allegations, and pure vitriol. The thing is, all of this is in the context of the larger discussion of Wikipedia, and people are going to expect Wikipedia to obey the rules of public discourse in the large.
Rational discourse forbade personal attacks long before there was a Wikipedia. We forbid them on Wikipedia because we want rational discourse. But the problem is, the way things are phrased, we don't really forbid them as long as the target is external, and therefore, in that respect rational discourse is impaired. And that's precisely what is happening. The rationality of the whole "attack sites" discussion is impaired because one side does keep attacking those sites in personal terms; and they continue to slip up and attack editors because some member of that site (such as myself) are editors. Discussion of those sites should be held to the standards of other discourse in Wikipedia, especially including citations when claims are made.
On 6/11/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Mr. Gallagher, I see my syntax was slightly ambiguous. Initially I did believe that the passage was authentic. Consultation with the WR-ites revealed that they thought it was not. I had them move the thread into the closed subforum so as to eliminate the (likely mistaken) allegation out of public view, and I left an apology with SV.
Not wishing to be graceless, but it wasn't the most effusive apology I've ever seen. After posting a COI notice about me, and someone else pointing out the post in question clearly wasn't from me, you apologized to me, adding "While I am not in general happy with your approach to editing, after discussion with others I must agree with them that the message in question could well have been a Joe job."
"Could well have been ..." suggests you still think there's a chance I was the author.
I blocked a teenage vandal about a year ago who spent several months plastering discussion boards with posts purporting to be from my e-mail address. Several were to advice columns where I appear to explain that I'm a pedophile unable to control my sexual appetite, and beg for help, just in case you find that one during your next Google search on me and think it's Smoking Gun 33â…“.
An addendum:
There comes a point at which I throw up my hands at trying to follow all the machinations of sockpuppetry, aliases, joe jobs, etc. Life is too short, and I don't know that the detail is that revealing. But it is clear that everyone significantly involved in the "attack sites" controversy understands that at some level the anonymity of editors is a convenient fiction. Too many people come Wikipedia with an axe to grind, if nothing else. But also we see the curious use of sockpuppetry accusations not to prevent people from presenting multiple copies of themselves in (non-)votes, but to prevent specific real people from editing. Upon a little reflection I'm more concerned about cliqueishness than about identity, which I suppose plays into my prior determination that it doesn't matter whether the Cabal(tm) members know each other In Real Life.
At this stage in the internet game, the only real protection for one's real identity is not to play. I'm simply not convinced that making the trip to the "revelations" on WR more indirect is much of an accomplishment. Right now it's raising the awareness that they are out there to be found.
Well, I'm not an effusive person.
I'm not big on all this "clarity". You are far more confident in the various suppositions about who is who and who did what than I think can be justified, as represented especially in the difference of opinions about what DennyColt was all about. I'm willing to leave things unresolved, and to offer no opinion as (for instance) whether you wrote the contested passage. And far be it from me to demand again another apology for the various things insinuated about me, but I've gotten none yet, nor do I expect that I will.
The third is the big one: the politics. Many, many people look upon Wikipedia as an object example of "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" (or "Lord of the Flies", if you prefer the monosyllabic version), and in my opinion, they're right.
<snip>
on 6/11/07 1:06 PM, Mark Gallagher at m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
And I do agree with you about the Tyranny of Structurelessness; all it means is that the powers-that-be are hidden from view, unknown, perhaps even to themselves. And nobody is accountable. This is a constant risk on Wikipedia, and there are parts of the project that have already succumbed.
OK, folks, how many references to ³structurelessness², and the effect it is having on this Project, is it going to take, before this Community wakes up and sees it for the truly serious problem that it is?
When will this Community realize that these ³powers-that-be² members with the loudest, most persistent, seemingly ³authoritative², and seemingly most convincing voices, will take negative advantage of that structureless vacuum and steer it in the direction they want it to go? And that, right now, they like it just the way it is!
When will the members of this Community take a step back from the piece of the puzzle they are interested in, and see that soon there may not be anything to connect it to?
When will this Community finally open their eyes and see that the Emperor really is naked?
Take a good look at the Wikipedia Logo: that may not be a puzzle being put together  but, rather, one that is coming apart.
Marc Riddell
G'day Marc,
(Go on, snip the bit I liked. No, no, I don't mind. If anyone wants me, I'll be alone in the corner, crying ...)
on 6/11/07 1:06 PM, Mark Gallagher at m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
And I do agree with you about the Tyranny of Structurelessness; all it means is that the powers-that-be are hidden from view, unknown, perhaps even to themselves. And nobody is accountable. This is a constant risk on Wikipedia, and there are parts of the project that have already succumbed.
OK, folks, how many references to ³structurelessness², and the effect it is having on this Project, is it going to take, before this Community wakes up and sees it for the truly serious problem that it is?
When will this Community realize that these ³powers-that-be² members with the loudest, most persistent, seemingly ³authoritative², and seemingly most convincing voices, will take negative advantage of that structureless vacuum and steer it in the direction they want it to go? And that, right now, they like it just the way it is!
I'm not convinced that the Man Behind the Curtain is entirely conscious of his power. Certainly I've had a lot of arguments with authoritative admins who aren't aware of how much power they wield, and how much potential for damage they possess.
<snip/>
on 6/12/07 8:56 AM, Mark Gallagher at m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Marc,
(Go on, snip the bit I liked. No, no, I don't mind. If anyone wants me, I'll be alone in the corner, crying ...)
on 6/11/07 1:06 PM, Mark Gallagher at m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
And I do agree with you about the Tyranny of Structurelessness; all it means is that the powers-that-be are hidden from view, unknown, perhaps even to themselves. And nobody is accountable. This is a constant risk on Wikipedia, and there are parts of the project that have already succumbed.
OK, folks, how many references to ³structurelessness², and the effect it is having on this Project, is it going to take, before this Community wakes up and sees it for the truly serious problem that it is?
When will this Community realize that these ³powers-that-be² members with the loudest, most persistent, seemingly ³authoritative², and seemingly most convincing voices, will take negative advantage of that structureless vacuum and steer it in the direction they want it to go? And that, right now, they like it just the way it is!
I'm not convinced that the Man Behind the Curtain is entirely conscious of his power. Certainly I've had a lot of arguments with authoritative admins who aren't aware of how much power they wield, and how much potential for damage they possess.
<snip/>
Sorry about the snip, Mark, I was focusing on the part of your post that fired me up the most: Organizational structure, or, really, the lack of it, in WP.
The bottom line is, a project (or community) of 10 cannot be managed in the same way that a project of 100 is, much less a thousand, much less one hundred thousand, much lessŠ
A formal day-to-day organizational structure must be created within WP if it is to survive. Right now it is being held together by paper clips and bailing wire.
Right now, the idea of such a formal structure, with specific persons guiding the Project, may produce anxiety in some of the Members - but this needn't be. Wikipedia is a unique work; its organizational structure can be just as unique.
I don't have an answer. I am simply trying to gather enough persons who recognize and care about this to put their creative heads together to find such an answer.
Marc
On Tue, June 12, 2007 7:34 am, Marc Riddell wrote:
A formal day-to-day organizational structure must be created within WP if it is to survive. Right now it is being held together by paper clips and bailing wire.
Right now, the idea of such a formal structure, with specific persons guiding the Project, may produce anxiety in some of the Members - but this needn't be. Wikipedia is a unique work; its organizational structure can be just as unique.
I don't have an answer. I am simply trying to gather enough persons who recognize and care about this to put their creative heads together to find such an answer.
You're spot on. Equally problematic is the fact that more people are coming around to this, and the old guard is trying desparately to exert the old way by nearly any means possible.
-Jeff
On Tue, June 12, 2007 7:34 am, Marc Riddell wrote:
A formal day-to-day organizational structure must be created within WP if it is to survive. Right now it is being held together by paper clips and bailing wire.
Right now, the idea of such a formal structure, with specific persons guiding the Project, may produce anxiety in some of the Members - but this needn't be. Wikipedia is a unique work; its organizational structure can be just as unique.
I don't have an answer. I am simply trying to gather enough persons who recognize and care about this to put their creative heads together to find such an answer.
on 6/12/07 10:54 AM, Jeff Raymond at jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
You're spot on. Equally problematic is the fact that more people are coming around to this, and the old guard is trying desparately to exert the old way by nearly any means possible.
-Jeff
Well, if the Community doesn't start seriously thinking about it soon - there won't be much left to guard.
This still is our collective Project - isn't it?
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
Well, if the Community doesn't start seriously thinking about it soon - there won't be much left to guard.
This still is our collective Project - isn't it?
My doubts increase daily.
-Jeff
On 6/1/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
This is the site that welcomed AMorrow with open arms. This is the site that Daniel Brandt regularly contributes to. This is the site that organised severe harrassment of Phil Sandifer, then lied about their motives. This is the site that drove Katefan0, *an admin who even they couldn't fault*, away from Wikipedia out of pure meanness of spirit. This is the site where, when a board administrator mentioned that revealing personal information was frowned-upon, the rest told that fellow: "Speak for yourself."
Wikipedia Review, in theory, could turn out not to be a cesspool. In theory, it could even be a reasonable, useful, intelligent forum. Many WR posters are very intelligent; some of them are even sane. Skyring is one obvious example of a reasonable poster, as is Blu Ardvaark (when he's on his meds), and I assume you, sir, would like to claim that title as well. But having one or two reasonable members is nothing to boast about, when the overall site and tone of the site is so filthy.
I haven't posted to WR in ages. I forget the exact circumstances of Katefan0, but the situation was that she was a blameless editor who just happened to attract the attention of WR. I looked at her edits, couldn't find anything remotely objectionable in them, said as much, but that didn't wash with the wider WR. I think there's a lot of "let's make this person's wikilife a misery, because we can" mentality.
What amuses me about WR is that it represents the flip side of WP. You'll see exactly the same misguided crusaders, the same unthinking harassment, the same well, everything.
On 5/31/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just list them at BADSITES as a "do not link list"? If the *community* agrees on an entry, hey, cool, don't link it. If not, well,
the
community has decided, right? Unless very small minorities on-wiki get
to
decide they know better than everyone else and try to policy wonk or
game
their way to their ends. But that would be wrong, no? ;)
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review. Mango, for example, posts as Papaya. Should the people who keep these sites going be the ones to decide our policy on linking to them?
As long as they aren't close to a majority of Wikipedians, why the bother? If they try to overrun our policies and processes, they won't get very far - and if the rest of the community acquiesces to what they want, it's up to you to change the rest of the community's mind.
Johnleemk
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Why not just list them at BADSITES as a "do not link list"?
That kinda defeats the purpose.
Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now, anything from MSNBC.com to CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.gov could theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any one person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth a site as one, but if people don't support it...
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now, anything from MSNBC.com to CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.gov could theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any one person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth a site as one, but if people don't support it...
That's an unhelpful slippery slope argument. For what it's worth, here's how I would define an "attack site": "a website that regularly publishes, or a large portion of which includes, the purported personal details of editors (unless those editors have themselves explicitly revealed the information); personal attacks; defamation; personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of, threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of privacy, or violence."
Now, given that definition, I can't see why anyone reasonable would object to a "no links to attack sites" rule of thumb. We don't even link to sites that engage in copyright violation. Even when we only *suspect* copyright violation, we err on the side of caution. Increasing the readership of websites that encourage people to stalk and harass Wikipedians, or that try to "out" them, or that publish defamation, is obviously a much dodgier thing to do than linking to a copyvio.
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now, anything from MSNBC.com to CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.gov could theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any one person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth a site as one, but if people don't support it...
That's an unhelpful slippery slope argument.
nielsenhayden.com is as likely to be regarded as an "attack site" as any of those. I mean, Will systematically removed all links to nielsenhayden.com as an "attack site" in absolute good faith. He believed the value of what he was doing - inarguably causing damage to the encyclopedia in the process.
That's why BADSITES *or anything that looks, walks and quacks like it* is unacceptable. It will be abused to damage the encyclopedia. By people convinced they're doing the right thing.
- d.
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's why BADSITES *or anything that looks, walks and quacks like it* is unacceptable.
BADSITES was designed to be unacceptable, so it's not a very good starting point.
Of course it was unacceptable. The principle behind it remains unacceptable, but that is exactly what is being proposed in the disputed section of the NPA policy. It is BADSITES in short.
Risker
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's why BADSITES *or anything that looks, walks and quacks like it* is unacceptable.
BADSITES was designed to be unacceptable, so it's not a very good starting point.
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 Wed, 30 May 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
Now, given that definition, I can't see why anyone reasonable would object to a "no links to attack sites" rule of thumb. We don't even link to sites that engage in copyright violation. Even when we only *suspect* copyright violation, we err on the side of caution.
We don't link *to suspected copyright violating materials*. We don't ban links to sites that we suspect copyright violation on.
Slim Virgin wrote:
For what it's worth, here's how I would define an "attack site": "a website that regularly publishes, or a large portion of which includes, the purported personal details of editors (unless those editors have themselves explicitly revealed the information); personal attacks; defamation; personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of, threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of privacy, or violence."
Thanks! I really appreciate seeing details. Making your proposal more clear will hopefully focus the discussion, which I think everybody would benefit from. A few questions:
1. Is there an implied "of editors" on each one of those? 2. If so, why would we stop with protecting Wikipedia editors only? 3. Does motive matter when revealing an editor's real-life identity? 4. Do the editor's on-Wiki actions affect the seriousness of revealing their identity? 5. What would we accept as evidence of those various behaviors? 6. Given that definition of attack site, what specifically would you like done about them? 7. How do you feel that those actions will help Wikipedia in ways that outweigh the harm of those actions?
Thanks,
William
Hm. The only issue with putting the focus on the sites (rather than the context of the links themselves) is that we'll still have to act against links to random blog posts that make serious personal attacks against Wikipedians, and this would not be covered by the central idea of the policy.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now, anything from MSNBC.comto CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.govcould theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any
one
person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth a site as one, but if people don't support it...
That's an unhelpful slippery slope argument. For what it's worth, here's how I would define an "attack site": "a website that regularly publishes, or a large portion of which includes, the purported personal details of editors (unless those editors have themselves explicitly revealed the information); personal attacks; defamation; personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of, threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of privacy, or violence."
Now, given that definition, I can't see why anyone reasonable would object to a "no links to attack sites" rule of thumb. We don't even link to sites that engage in copyright violation. Even when we only *suspect* copyright violation, we err on the side of caution. Increasing the readership of websites that encourage people to stalk and harass Wikipedians, or that try to "out" them, or that publish defamation, is obviously a much dodgier thing to do than linking to a copyvio.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hey, didn't mean to send that (you can blame Gmail!) I could have developed the ideas more, but the basic point is still there.
On 6/1/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. The only issue with putting the focus on the sites (rather than the context of the links themselves) is that we'll still have to act against links to random blog posts that make serious personal attacks against Wikipedians, and this would not be covered by the central idea of the policy. On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin < slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now, anything from MSNBC.comto CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.govcould theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for
any one
person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth a site as one, but
if
people don't support it...
That's an unhelpful slippery slope argument. For what it's worth, here's how I would define an "attack site": "a website that regularly publishes, or a large portion of which includes, the purported personal details of editors (unless those editors have themselves explicitly revealed the information); personal attacks; defamation; personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of, threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of privacy, or violence."
Now, given that definition, I can't see why anyone reasonable would object to a "no links to attack sites" rule of thumb. We don't even link to sites that engage in copyright violation. Even when we only *suspect* copyright violation, we err on the side of caution. Increasing the readership of websites that encourage people to stalk and harass Wikipedians, or that try to "out" them, or that publish defamation, is obviously a much dodgier thing to do than linking to a copyvio.
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 01/06/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. The only issue with putting the focus on the sites (rather than the context of the links themselves) is that we'll still have to act against links to random blog posts that make serious personal attacks against Wikipedians, and this would not be covered by the central idea of the policy.
That depends what the central idea of the (proposed) policy actually is. I'm still waiting for a clear statement without equivocation.
- d.
On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. The only issue with putting the focus on the sites (rather than the context of the links themselves) is that we'll still have to act against links to random blog posts that make serious personal attacks against Wikipedians, and this would not be covered by the central idea of the policy.
That depends what the central idea of the (proposed) policy actually is. I'm still waiting for a clear statement without equivocation.
- d.
My take on their position is that those that favor the concept of attack sites have as their means warring against certain sites (and I believe some have said this explicitly), but directly protecting Wikipedians seems to get half-lost in the shuffle.
To further examine the issue, [[WP:DENY]] (dissuading reputation, in the literal sense) is an unrecognized factor. When you go all out anti-vandalism, you get the CVU, which has been described by some as paramilitary.
Yes, ArbCom used the "attack sites" approach, but just because something was true in MONGO's unfortunate case does not mean that it should be blanket enforced. This has been mentioned before, but it is very applicable here.
--Gracenotes
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
Indeed, there are at best 5-7 total 'attack sites'. So few, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
5-7 sites you are aware of, today. There are thousands of these things out there, and more all the time.
Why not just list them at BADSITES as a "do not link list"? If the *community* agrees on an entry, hey, cool, don't link it. If not, well, the community has decided, right? Unless very small minorities on-wiki get to decide they know better than everyone else and try to policy wonk or game their way to their ends. But that would be wrong, no? ;)
I'm not talking about BADSITES, which was a straw man policy. I'm exploring the claim that it would benefit Wikipedia to link to WR or sites very much like it.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about BADSITES, which was a straw man policy. I'm exploring the claim that it would benefit Wikipedia to link to WR or sites very much like it.
I understand. Let me phrase it this way: RFA. Bob runs for adminship. Bob has good edits, good this, good that. He'd likely be a fine canidate and a fine admin. John alleges, on Bob's RFA, that Bob is a regular contributor to an attack site. Someone asks for proof of this. Here are three questions for both you and Slim, and others:
1. How can John offer proof? We can't link to attack sites. Is John supposed to name the site, and tell people what to search for?
2. Without proof, anyone--given the poisonous nature of BADSITES/attack sites--can poison a canidate and nuke an RFA with impunity. Do you think that being allowed to make allegations without matching evidence is appropriate? Note that RFA is a community matter, and the RFA process needs to be transparent.
3. Bob can refute the possibly empty allegation, but what does it matter? People are drive by !voters. Submit, and gone. If someone gets a poison pill into the RFA early enough, it doesn't matter. You know this to be true. Bob can't even in some interpretations NAME the offending site without directing people right to it. What are your thoughts on this?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
I understand. Let me phrase it this way: RFA. Bob runs for adminship. Bob has good edits, good this, good that. He'd likely be a fine canidate and a fine admin. John alleges, on Bob's RFA, that Bob is a regular contributor to an attack site. Someone asks for proof of this. Here are three questions for both you and Slim, and others:
- How can John offer proof? We can't link to attack sites. Is John supposed
to name the site, and tell people what to search for?
Name the site, and give the date and time of the posts; or upload screenshots; or better still ask John to confirm or deny that he's a regular poster. If he confirms, no need to link. If he denies, no point in linking.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
- How can John offer proof? We can't link to attack sites. Is John
supposed
to name the site, and tell people what to search for?
Name the site, and give the date and time of the posts; or upload screenshots; or better still ask John to confirm or deny that he's a regular poster. If he confirms, no need to link. If he denies, no point in linking.
Then why did you and other BADSITES proponents specifically remove references to antisocialmedia.net from Cla's RFA when he named the site, if this avenue is acceptable?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
- How can John offer proof? We can't link to attack sites. Is John
supposed
to name the site, and tell people what to search for?
Name the site, and give the date and time of the posts; or upload screenshots; or better still ask John to confirm or deny that he's a regular poster. If he confirms, no need to link. If he denies, no point in linking.
Then why did you and other BADSITES proponents specifically remove references to antisocialmedia.net from Cla's RFA when he named the site, if this avenue is acceptable?
Also, will you be willing to answer questions 2 and 3, which are more important still?
2. Without proof, anyone--given the poisonous nature of BADSITES/attack sites--can poison a canidate and nuke an RFA with impunity. Do you think that being allowed to make allegations without matching evidence is appropriate? Note that RFA is a community matter, and the RFA process needs to be transparent.
3. Bob can refute the possibly empty allegation, but what does it matter? People are drive by !voters. Submit, and gone. If someone gets a poison pill into the RFA early enough, it doesn't matter. You know this to be true. Bob can't even in some interpretations NAME the offending site without directing people right to it. What are your thoughts on this?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
I understand. Let me phrase it this way: RFA. Bob runs for adminship. Bob has good edits, good this, good that. He'd likely be a fine canidate and a fine admin. John alleges, on Bob's RFA, that Bob is a regular contributor to an attack site. Someone asks for proof of this. Here are three questions for both you and Slim, and others:
- How can John offer proof? We can't link to attack sites. Is John supposed
to name the site, and tell people what to search for?
Name the site, and give the date and time of the posts; or upload screenshots; or better still ask John to confirm or deny that he's a regular poster. If he confirms, no need to link. If he denies, no point in linking.
That would work.
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about BADSITES, which was a straw man policy. I'm exploring the claim that it would benefit Wikipedia to link to WR or sites very much like it.
I understand. Let me phrase it this way: RFA. Bob runs for adminship. Bob has good edits, good this, good that. He'd likely be a fine canidate and a fine admin. John alleges, on Bob's RFA, that Bob is a regular contributor to an attack site. Someone asks for proof of this. Here are three questions for both you and Slim, and others:
- How can John offer proof? We can't link to attack sites. Is John supposed
to name the site, and tell people what to search for?
- Without proof, anyone--given the poisonous nature of BADSITES/attack
sites--can poison a canidate and nuke an RFA with impunity. Do you think that being allowed to make allegations without matching evidence is appropriate? Note that RFA is a community matter, and the RFA process needs to be transparent.
- Bob can refute the possibly empty allegation, but what does it matter?
People are drive by !voters. Submit, and gone. If someone gets a poison pill into the RFA early enough, it doesn't matter. You know this to be true. Bob can't even in some interpretations NAME the offending site without directing people right to it. What are your thoughts on this?
Yes, that's one of the two cases I've seen so far that might qualify, someone who is running for a Wikipedia "office" and is also posting to WR (or accused of it). The other would be the unlikely event that WR was notable enough to actually warrant a Wikipedia article.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's one of the two cases I've seen so far that might qualify, someone who is running for a Wikipedia "office" and is also posting to WR (or accused of it). The other would be the unlikely event that WR was notable enough to actually warrant a Wikipedia article.
And your answers to the specific points I raised, please? The evasiveness to answer and defend your stance is problematic.
If you stand by your convictions and can back them up, it shouldn't be a problem, of course. Also, this doesn't appear to be about Wikipedia Review at all, but a whole new implementation of policy that empowers anyone to scream fire and get things they don't like arbitrarily removed from Wikipedia.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
jayjg wrote:
O.K., so now we have a third case; in the event that someone has posted something horrible on WR (a highly likely possibility), and they are also running for something on Wikipedia (like adminship), you think it would be beneficial to link to that awful post.
I didn't say that. You are simply putting words into my mouth. It would be beneficial to point out that such a posting exists, and a link *may* be appropriate, depending on the content and context of the discussion being linked to.
"While I can't exactly think of an example" - aye, there's the rub. It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
There are very few circumstances where a link could be justified, I will grant that. But, as I said, there are occasions where one is beneficial.
Here's another possibility. Wikipedia Review's "Articles" forum was initially designed to discuss article content in depth, and point out any specific problems in language, structure, sourcing, whathaveyou. It has rarely been used for this purpose, but if and when a user did post another in-depth evaluation, it certainly could be beneficial to point it out on Wikipedia.
Let's suppose Daniel Brandt ran his plagiarism checker again, and posted the result on Wikipedia Review. Would a link to the site not be beneficial to the project in calling a problem to the attention of editors?
Realize, I'm speaking strictly of links in project and user space. There is exactly one occasion where a link to the site may be justified in article space, and that is in a biography page that should have been deleted a long time ago. The link might also have been beneficial in the [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] article, but the site strayed a bit from it's original stated goal, and it isn't quite as useful in that arena as it was designed to be.
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
There are very few circumstances where a link could be justified, I will grant that. But, as I said, there are occasions where one is beneficial.
Here's another possibility. Wikipedia Review's "Articles" forum was initially designed to discuss article content in depth, and point out any specific problems in language, structure, sourcing, whathaveyou. It has rarely been used for this purpose, but if and when a user did post another in-depth evaluation, it certainly could be beneficial to point it out on Wikipedia.
How?
Let's suppose Daniel Brandt ran his plagiarism checker again, and posted the result on Wikipedia Review. Would a link to the site not be beneficial to the project in calling a problem to the attention of editors?
Wouldn't an e-mail to a list do an equally good job?
Realize, I'm speaking strictly of links in project and user space. There is exactly one occasion where a link to the site may be justified in article space, and that is in a biography page that should have been deleted a long time ago.
If it's the article I think you're referring to, it's not his website, it's just a message board he sometimes posts on, so there would be no point in linking to it.
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
There are very few circumstances where a link could be justified, I will grant that. But, as I said, there are occasions where one is beneficial.
Here's another possibility. Wikipedia Review's "Articles" forum was initially designed to discuss article content in depth, and point out any specific problems in language, structure, sourcing, whathaveyou. It has rarely been used for this purpose, but if and when a user did post another in-depth evaluation, it certainly could be beneficial to point it out on Wikipedia.
How?
Um, so the article could be improved? I'm not talking rocket science here.
Wouldn't an e-mail to a list do an equally good job?
Indeed it would. But if a well-meaning contributor pointed it out on Wikipedia rather than on the mailing list, what would the problem be with that?
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
There are very few circumstances where a link could be justified, I
will
grant that. But, as I said, there are occasions where one is
beneficial.
Here's another possibility. Wikipedia Review's "Articles" forum was initially designed to discuss article content in depth, and point out any specific problems in language, structure, sourcing, whathaveyou. It has rarely been used for this purpose, but if and when a user did post another in-depth evaluation, it certainly could be beneficial to point it out on Wikipedia.
How?
Um, so the article could be improved? I'm not talking rocket science here.
Wouldn't an e-mail to a list do an equally good job?
Indeed it would. But if a well-meaning contributor pointed it out on Wikipedia rather than on the mailing list, what would the problem be with that?
Actually, no it wouldn't. The talk pages of articles are intended for community discussion, not simply a discussion with one other editor. Putting editors in a position to have to discuss a Wikipedia editing decision off-wiki is absurd.
Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Risker wrote:
Actually, no it wouldn't. The talk pages of articles are intended for community discussion, not simply a discussion with one other editor. Putting editors in a position to have to discuss a Wikipedia editing decision off-wiki is absurd.
Risker
That makes zero sense whatsoever. If an alleged "attack site" posted an in-depth critique of an article, and a well-meaning user posted a link to that critique on the talk page of an article, it kinda goes to follow that the reasoning for that would be so that the community could discuss and improve the article in question.
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
O.K., so now we have a third case; in the event that someone has posted something horrible on WR (a highly likely possibility), and they are also running for something on Wikipedia (like adminship), you think it would be beneficial to link to that awful post. ... "While I can't exactly think of an example" - aye, there's the rub. It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
Here's a fourth case: the Brandt link on Wikipedia Signpost.
Here's a fifth case: links to attack sites in the talk page discussing the attack sites policy.
The list starts to get large. Of course, the links I just described were removed robotically by BADSITES proponents.
On 30/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Here's a fourth case: the Brandt link on Wikipedia Signpost. Here's a fifth case: links to attack sites in the talk page discussing the attack sites policy. The list starts to get large. Of course, the links I just described were removed robotically by BADSITES proponents.
Indeed. I'm failing to see (a) denial of these actions (b) acknowledgement that doing so might have been a bad idea.
- d.
I am a little puzzled why we should link differently to site attacking wikipedia than to sites attacking anything else, and why we should pay more respect to the privacy of wikipedia people than we would pay to anyone else.
Treating ourselves -- as individuals or as an organization -- as something in special in articles violates NPOV, and COI, besides providing a perfect target for our enemies. I actually believe in those two principles. Those who would make exceptions for themselves do not.
I am not supporting attacks on individuals--we shouldn't make them on anyone. But how can we report political subjects -- and many other -- without referring to sites that primarily act to advance their cause by attacking their opponents? this should apply to all subjects equally, including ourself.
BLP is a good policy, and should apply to ourselves as individuals, in talk as well as articles, in WP space as in mainspace. Avoiding libel is a good policy, and should apply to everything, talk as well as articles in WP space as in mainspace. To everything equally.
On 5/30/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I am a little puzzled why we should link differently to site attacking wikipedia than to sites attacking anything else, and why we should pay more respect to the privacy of wikipedia people than we would pay to anyone else.
We don't knowingly link to the libel, stalking, and harassment of non-Wikipedians either.
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
I am a little puzzled why we should link differently to site attacking wikipedia than to sites attacking anything else, and why we should pay more respect to the privacy of wikipedia people than we would pay to anyone else.
We don't knowingly link to the libel, stalking, and harassment of non-Wikipedians either.
We knowingly link to *sites* that participate in the libel, stalking, and harassment of non-Wikipedians elsewhere on the site.
On 5/30/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I am a little puzzled why we should link differently to site attacking wikipedia than to sites attacking anything else, and why we should pay more respect to the privacy of wikipedia people than we would pay to anyone else.
Treating ourselves -- as individuals or as an organization -- as something in special in articles violates NPOV, and COI, besides providing a perfect target for our enemies. I actually believe in those two principles. Those who would make exceptions for themselves do not.
Wikipedia editors do a huge amount of work for Wikipedia, and get little in return. The least they can ask is that Wikipedia itself not increase the readership of site that attack them - attacks that have come about precisely because they have been doing work for Wikipedia.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia editors do a huge amount of work for Wikipedia, and get little in return. The least they can ask is that Wikipedia itself not increase the readership of site that attack them - attacks that have come about precisely because they have been doing work for Wikipedia.
And curiously, the few (<5) editors who are most aggressively attacked for on-Wiki actions are the ones who want the links removed. You have a conflict of interest, Jay. Perhaps if administrators and editors focused on making the articles better, rather than advancing their own ends and personal, social, or religious ideals (not naming names) they wouldn't draw off-Wiki "enemies" like flies.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
And curiously, the few (<5) editors who are most aggressively attacked for on-Wiki actions are the ones who want the links removed.
There's nothing curious about it. It's completely understandable.
Try to stop blaming the people who are being attacked, and look at the viciousness of some of the material we're dealing with. It goes way, way beyond what anyone could call legitimate criticism.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
And curiously, the few (<5) editors who are most aggressively attacked
for
on-Wiki actions are the ones who want the links removed.
Try to stop blaming the people who are being attacked, and look at the viciousness of some of the material we're dealing with. It goes way, way beyond what anyone could call legitimate criticism.
My apologies if you took it as my blaming you for receiving what some people perceive as retributions for any alleged on-wiki malfeasance.
My point is that you shouldn't make bad policy because <10 people insist it will be. I know I sound like a broken record here, but no lone person nor sub-sub group of people should have any more authority, let alone political power, than anyone else on the encyclopedia. You and Jay seem to wield disproportionate power relative to your tenuous positions. As this proposal and other ducks that quack like them seem to have no broad acceptance, nothing will come of trying to implement them than ever increasing disruption of Wikipedia and attempts to game the system of things like RFA. In other words, BADSITES was DOA before some tried to OWN it (along with the Wiki/admin nomination process). As I mentioned in the other email, in hindsight the entire thing appears to be a tool to control who gets to play admin.
How does any of this benefit the encyclopedia?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia editors do a huge amount of work for Wikipedia, and get little in return. The least they can ask is that Wikipedia itself not increase the readership of site that attack them - attacks that have come about precisely because they have been doing work for Wikipedia.
And curiously, the few (<5) editors who are most aggressively attacked for on-Wiki actions are the ones who want the links removed. You have a conflict of interest, Jay. Perhaps if administrators and editors focused on making the articles better, rather than advancing their own ends and personal, social, or religious ideals (not naming names) they wouldn't draw off-Wiki "enemies" like flies.
I didn't notice this e-mail before; in response, I'll just note that perhaps if posters to this list focused on honest and intelligent dialogue, rather than advancing foaming-at-the-mouth "women who dress in scanty clothes are just asking to be raped" arguments, (not naming names), they'd have a better chance of not looking like rabid fools.
jayjg wrote:
I didn't notice this e-mail before; in response, I'll just note that perhaps if posters to this list focused on honest and intelligent dialogue, rather than advancing foaming-at-the-mouth "women who dress in scanty clothes are just asking to be raped" arguments, (not naming names), they'd have a better chance of not looking like rabid fools.
Sorry, is this supposed to be an example of honest and intelligent dialog? Because that's not how it's coming across to me.
William
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
I didn't notice this e-mail before; in response, I'll just note that perhaps if posters to this list focused on honest and intelligent dialogue, rather than advancing foaming-at-the-mouth "women who dress in scanty clothes are just asking to be raped" arguments, (not naming names), they'd have a better chance of not looking like rabid fools.
Sorry, is this supposed to be an example of honest and intelligent dialog? Because that's not how it's coming across to me.
Well, it was actually an example of answering in kind. That said, it was also honest and intelligent.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't notice this e-mail before; in response, I'll just note that perhaps if posters to this list focused on honest and intelligent dialogue, rather than advancing foaming-at-the-mouth "women who dress in scanty clothes are just asking to be raped" arguments, (not naming names), they'd have a better chance of not looking like rabid fools.
With that and your clear disregard for practical reality beyond to push your own polarizing agendas and POV, I will bow out, but I would like an apology from you which I don't expect shall be forthcoming. Fools are the ones who manipulate others intentionally to advance their own aims, trampling them in the process. Perhaps your pending RFAR for trying to play the seemingly usual games will teach you apparently needed humility. Perhaps not.
Equating my point that, "If people leave virtual bread crumbs all over the internet that show who they are and where they live, people will be expected to put 2 and 2 together, and the subject should not be surprised or upset when this happens," to "Obviously, you're saying the same thing as women deserved to be raped for dressing in sexy apparel," is filthy and disgusting.
No, I clearly said that if you're so frakking concerned about your privacy, to protect your "IRL" interests so that you can do harm and play mad power games on Wikipedia, cover your ass well, and don't play a screaming and crying game when you screwed up and didn't realize that you left the equivalent of a digital sandwich board on your chest that says, "I live here! HERE!! And this is my NAME!" Wikipedia's privacy policy protects you from Wikipedia/ians disclosing info from you on-Wiki, or from information (IPs, etc.) that you gave to Wikipedia.
If you posted with the same handle hypothetically as "Jayjg" and said, "Richmond ROCKS! So does Temple Such and Such, and I like eating Salmon!" on some message board or blog comment, and someone Googles your name, and starts seeing Easter Eggs all over, it's not Wikipedia's job to enforce a cover up of the fact that 'someone' named Jayjg comes possibly from a given town, goes to a given Temple, and enjoys eating salmon.
If people are that worried about it, use a different username on-Wiki that has nothing to do with you, don't say squat about who you are, what you do for a living, where you live, and be mindful if you edit articles related to you and yours to play fairly and by the rules, to not piss off people and get them searching for you. That's what I said. Basically, "Don't be an idiot, and then blame others for your own actions and their consequences."
You don't need to respond to this; your smoke and mirrors games don't matter.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/31/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't notice this e-mail before; in response, I'll just note that perhaps if posters to this list focused on honest and intelligent dialogue, rather than advancing foaming-at-the-mouth "women who dress in scanty clothes are just asking to be raped" arguments, (not naming names), they'd have a better chance of not looking like rabid fools.
With that and your clear disregard for practical reality beyond to push your own polarizing agendas and POV, I will bow out, but I would like an apology from you which I don't expect shall be forthcoming.
You first.
[more pointless insults and vague threats snipped]
Equating my point that, "If people leave virtual bread crumbs all over the internet that show who they are and where they live, people will be expected to put 2 and 2 together, and the subject should not be surprised or upset when this happens," to "Obviously, you're saying the same thing as women deserved to be raped for dressing in sexy apparel," is filthy and disgusting.
No, it's a quite valid analogy. Stop blaming the victim.
[another pointless diatribe snipped]
If you posted with the same handle hypothetically as "Jayjg" and said, "Richmond ROCKS! So does Temple Such and Such, and I like eating Salmon!" on some message board or blog comment, and someone Googles your name, and starts seeing Easter Eggs all over, it's not Wikipedia's job to enforce a cover up of the fact that 'someone' named Jayjg comes possibly from a given town, goes to a given Temple, and enjoys eating salmon.
Except, of course, none of that was done. You keep inventing some alternate reality, and then railing at others based on it. Meanwhile, back in the real-world, none of that, nor anything even remotely approximating it, was done.
If people are that worried about it, use a different username on-Wiki that has nothing to do with you, don't say squat about who you are, what you do for a living, where you live, and be mindful if you edit articles related to you and yours to play fairly and by the rules, to not piss off people and get them searching for you. That's what I said.
And what makes you think that wasn't done? Oh, wait, I forgot, you're inventing an alternate reality again, and then railing at others based on it.
Basically, "Don't be an idiot, and then blame others for your own actions and their consequences."
Basically, "if you insist on wearing provocative clothing, you only have yourself to blame when you get raped."
You don't need to respond to this; your smoke and mirrors games don't matter.
What, so you can get the last rant in? Hardly. Your heartless victim blaming mentality, built on equal parts prejudice and ignorance, deserved a response.
On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
O.K., so now we have a third case; in the event that someone has posted something horrible on WR (a highly likely possibility), and they are also running for something on Wikipedia (like adminship), you think it would be beneficial to link to that awful post. ... "While I can't exactly think of an example" - aye, there's the rub. It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
Here's a fourth case: the Brandt link on Wikipedia Signpost.
I don't see any specific benefit to Wikipedia in having its unofficial newspaper link to WR.
Here's a fifth case: links to attack sites in the talk page discussing the attack sites policy.
I don't think there is such a policy, though, so its moot. There was a strawman policy proposed at one time, which seemed specifically designed to draw attention to WR, but that's a different situation.
The list starts to get large.
No, it's still extremely small.
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Here's a fifth case: links to attack sites in the talk page discussing the attack sites policy.
I don't think there is such a policy, though, so its moot. There was a strawman policy proposed at one time, which seemed specifically designed to draw attention to WR, but that's a different situation.
Don't be dense - this is precisely what happened in the talk page of what was WP:BADSITES.
- d.
jayjg wrote:
Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
I can think of four classes of occasion:
1. When the site is the topic of an article or the source for an article, 2. As part of a policy discussion around WP:BADSITES or any related policy, 3. As part of a collection of evidence as to why a particular site is banned, and 4. When a Wikipedia participant's behavior on or participation in one of those sites is raised as an issue in any on-WP proceeding, like an RFA or anything in dispute resolution.
If the first hasn't happened yet, it will eventually. As people never tire of pointing out, we're a top-10 website, so like it or not, our critics will eventually become notable just for opposing us. For example, see:
http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/07/cx_cw_0308hate_print.html
The second and third are pretty normal things we do when discussing and implementing policy. Indeed, on current trends I expect BADSITES will never become a solid policy because the suppression of relevant information is antithetical to the way we get anywhere together.
As to the last, the nature and extent of one's participation in a BADSITE seems like a relevant factor to me, especially in questions of discipline or community trust.
William