-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:47 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
I'm not sure how that could really work, though. The point of gathering the community is to write the encyclopedia. It may be useful to pretend otherwise at times, but that's actually the purpose.
-d.
_______________________________________________
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Fred
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
I'm not sure how that could really work, though. The point of gathering the community is to write the encyclopedia. It may be useful to pretend otherwise at times, but that's actually the purpose. -d. _______________________________________________
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Fred
Symbiosis.
Ec
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
- d.
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
On 10/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
Right. Damaging the encyclopedia incrementally as retribution for a percieved or actual attack seems unwise.
In the case where someone outright attacks Wikipedia in an obvious manner, perhaps we should have some cases for community self defense allowed. But...
We've removed links from three categories of sites that jump to mind. They are exemplified by "Wikipedia Review" type links (site is only there to attack us), "Making Light" type links (site is a blog, but well respected, and only tangentally was involved in an attack on a Wikipedian), and "Michael Moore" type links (site is big/credible/respected if ideological, and was clearly engaged in an attack on a Wikipedian).
The latter two categories of link removals were and remain pretty controversial.
Maybe the policy should just be "Don't Remove Any Article Topically Appropriate Link", failing a consensus determination that a site is in the first category clearly (or Arbcom decision if it's borderline).
David Gerard wrote:
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
What does the link to michaelmoore.com contribute to the encyclopedia? It isn't being used as a source for the article.
Will Beback
On 10/15/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
What does the link to michaelmoore.com contribute to the encyclopedia? It isn't being used as a source for the article.
Will Beback
You could make the same claim about any website link when it's the article subject ("Why include this, they can just google to find the link if they're curious...").
The argument does not hold up. We're an encyclopedia and a modern web wiki - you provide links to relevant information, internally and externally, as part of how and what you deliver in terms of information content.
Arguing "...but not in cases where we don't like them, even if they're relevant" is pretty specious.
On 15/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
What does the link to michaelmoore.com contribute to the encyclopedia? It isn't being used as a source for the article.
Will Beback
and this exemplifies everything that is wrong with the 'encyclopedia' at the moment.
On 15/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
What does the link to michaelmoore.com contribute to the encyclopedia? It isn't being used as a source for the article.
Um, it's the website of the subject of the article. Every article about a subject that has a website of its own has or should have such a website listed in "External links" as obviously relevant.
You are twisting every way you can to come up with an excuse not to include such a link, for every reason except coming out and honestly say "We should remove any mention of links to people we decide we don't like." All your various formulations closely resemble attempting to say anything other than that, which appears to be the actual reason.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 15/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
The link to michaelmoore.com contribute to the encyclopedia? It isn't being used as a source for the article.
Um, it's the website of the subject of the article. Every article about a subject that has a website of its own has or should have such a website listed in "External links" as obviously relevant.
You are twisting every way you can to come up with an excuse not to include such a link, for every reason except coming out and honestly say "We should remove any mention of links to people we decide we don't like." All your various formulations closely resemble attempting to say anything other than that, which appears to be the actual reason.
- d.
It doesn't appear that the site adds anything to the article, and is merely a convenience to readers. WP:CONVENIENCE is not a core policy, or even a guideline. If convenience is the only reason to retain a self-published website that is actively harassing Wikipedia editors then I think our priorities aren't right.
Will Beback
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You are twisting every way you can to come up with an excuse not to include such a link, for every reason except coming out and honestly say "We should remove any mention of links to people we decide we don't like." All your various formulations closely resemble attempting to say anything other than that, which appears to be the actual reason.
Which, in itself, arguably might not be a problem, provided there were a sensible way of determining who "people we don't like" are, and assuming "we" means the community as a whole, not a small subset thereof.
James Farrar wrote:
Which, in itself, arguably might not be a problem, provided there were a sensible way of determining who "people we don't like" are, and assuming "we" means the community as a whole, not a small subset thereof.
In what way would institutionalizing a particular POV in our content policies _not_ be a problem?
On 16/10/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Which, in itself, arguably might not be a problem, provided there were a sensible way of determining who "people we don't like" are, and assuming "we" means the community as a whole, not a small subset thereof.
In what way would institutionalizing a particular POV in our content policies _not_ be a problem?
It would emphasise its own absurdity?
On 16/10/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Which, in itself, arguably might not be a problem, provided there were a sensible way of determining who "people we don't like" are, and assuming "we" means the community as a whole, not a small subset thereof.
In what way would institutionalizing a particular POV in our content policies _not_ be a problem?
It would emphasise its own absurdity?
That's worked so far! Oh, wait.
Really, the problem with the BADSITES advocates claiming "our position is not BADSITES, it was written by a troll" is that they then follow with actions indistinguishable from BADSITES, and which ignore reductio ad absurdum.
These people seriously wish to trash NPOV and consensus (or even "consensus") for ... what precisely?
- d.
Really, the problem with the BADSITES advocates claiming "our position is not BADSITES, it was written by a troll" is that they then follow with actions indistinguishable from BADSITES, and which ignore reductio ad absurdum.
These people seriously wish to trash NPOV and consensus (or even "consensus") for ... what precisely?
- d.
Have you offered a solution? Are the only two positions on this issue BADSITES or THICKSKIN? With the possible exceptions of a couple of editors, no one enjoys debating this matter, and a resolution that results in a consensus policy would be ideal. What elements do you think would be included in a good policy on links to external harassment?
Will
On 16/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Have you offered a solution? Are the only two positions on this issue BADSITES or THICKSKIN? With the possible exceptions of a couple of editors, no one enjoys debating this matter, and a resolution that results in a consensus policy would be ideal. What elements do you think would be included in a good policy on links to external harassment?
I've already suggested to the ArbCom a principle:
"Community policies shall not apply to article-space content."
I've also strongly suggested that the "external links" section of NPA be abolished. It's being used as an excuse to damage article content. The ArbCom's proposals on harassment (specifically Charles Matthews') seem sufficient to me.
(Note by the way I've also done quite a bit of work actually tracking down, blocking and reverting the stalkers, with a goodly dose of tarbaby/briar patch, so I do know at least a little about the problem and am not just saying "go away and grow a skin" - I'm saying that BADSITES or functional equivalent is a disastrous failure even with the best of intentions.)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I've also strongly suggested that the "external links" section of NPA be abolished. It's being used as an excuse to damage article content.
If that section were limited to saying something like
A link to a personal attack on an external website, inserted into a Wikipedia page in a context that furthers the linked-to attack, is tantamount to an on-wiki personal attack and is equally prohibited under this policy.
; if we got rid of all the footnotes and tortured language suggesting that the section has aspirations of morphing back into some bastard stepchild of BADSITES, I think it would be fine and noncontentious, and could and should stay. (In other words, "You can't get around NPA by putting the PA on an external site and linking to it.")
In 16/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
; if we got rid of all the footnotes and tortured language suggesting that the section has aspirations of morphing back into some bastard stepchild of BADSITES, I think it would be fine and noncontentious, and could and should stay. (In other words, "You can't get around NPA by putting the PA on an external site and linking to it.")
Maybe we could call it the "don't be a dick" policy.
On 10/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I've also strongly suggested that the "external links" section of NPA be abolished. It's being used as an excuse to damage article content.
If that section were limited to saying something like
A link to a personal attack on an external website, inserted into a Wikipedia page in a context that furthers the linked-to attack, is tantamount to an on-wiki personal attack and is equally prohibited under this policy.; if we got rid of all the footnotes and tortured language suggesting that the section has aspirations of morphing back into some bastard stepchild of BADSITES, I think it would be fine and noncontentious, and could and should stay. (In other words, "You can't get around NPA by putting the PA on an external site and linking to it.")
The even more silly thing is that NPA has always said this. It doesn't say "No personal attacks and no harrassing people ... unless you use external links to do it, then it's fine". The position you expound above has been in place as long as NPA has, and has been enforcable the whole time, without ArbCom, without drama, without bullshit.
Cheers, WilyD
David Gerard wrote:
On 16/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Have you offered a solution? Are the only two positions on this issue BADSITES or THICKSKIN? With the possible exceptions of a couple of editors, no one enjoys debating this matter, and a resolution that results in a consensus policy would be ideal. What elements do you think would be included in a good policy on links to external harassment?
I've already suggested to the ArbCom a principle:
"Community policies shall not apply to article-space content."
I've also strongly suggested that the "external links" section of NPA be abolished. It's being used as an excuse to damage article content. The ArbCom's proposals on harassment (specifically Charles Matthews') seem sufficient to me.
(Note by the way I've also done quite a bit of work actually tracking down, blocking and reverting the stalkers, with a goodly dose of tarbaby/briar patch, so I do know at least a little about the problem and am not just saying "go away and grow a skin" - I'm saying that BADSITES or functional equivalent is a disastrous failure even with the best of intentions.)
- d.
I don't see any proposal from Matthews in the ArbCom case, except for some discussion at the end:
Later comment: even if asked, the AC cannot lay down new policy here. WP:HARASS and our customs go a long way to limit any postings of external links that are designed to damage the reputations of editors. The community must hammer out fresh policy if it wants one. BADSITES rightly failed, because WP cannot be solipsistic about its place in the Web world, and because the cases involving ED do not create precedent. I'd like to put it this way: clearly enWP has the power to remove all external links to, and even mentions of, some other site. To the extent that Wikipedia is media and of increasing prominence, this 'power' is something real. Now, looking ahead, such power must not be used simply to bully critics. We must become diplomats. Charles Matthews 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
So proposal is to keep links in articles (if they qualify as reliable sources) regardless of how nasty the harassment on the linked pages, and no new policy to links to external harassment. The only positive action would be (if I've picked the right Matthews proposal) private diplomacy in order to try to get the websites to remove the harassment.
I don't see any comment from you about links outside of article space, so I'm not sure if you are in favor removing those. On the whole, it does appear that you are saying to Wikipedia editors that they must deal with harassment either by growing a thicker skin or by leaving the project. Is that correct?
Will
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any comment from you about links outside of article space, so I'm not sure if you are in favor removing those. On the whole, it does appear that you are saying to Wikipedia editors that they must deal with harassment either by growing a thicker skin or by leaving the project. Is that correct?
Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an "attack site" is a necessary move.
You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary choices.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
don't see any comment from you about links outside of article space, so I'm not sure if you are in favor removing those. On the whole, it does appear that you are saying to Wikipedia editors that they must deal with harassment either by growing a thicker skin or by leaving the project. Is that correct?
Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an "attack site" is a necessary move.
You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary choices.
Let's not engage in uncivil language with each other while we're discussing harassment.
I find that many folks in this debate already engage in binary choices: caling all attempt at solving this issue as "BADSITES". I asked you what you though we should do about it and your answer appears to boil down to "nothing". So one way of splitting the issue is those who want to do something and those who want to do nothing. If there's something that you think we can do so far as creating a policy, guideline or procedure then please share it with us.
W.
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an "attack site" is a necessary move. You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary choices.
Let's not engage in uncivil language with each other while we're discussing harassment.
It's hardly "uncivil language" to note that you come to this discussion with unclean hands.
It's clear you understand that people were upset at what you did, but still don't understand *why* they were upset. If you disagree, are you able to articulate what they were upset about?
- d.
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an "attack site" is a necessary move. You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary choices.
Let's not engage in uncivil language with each other while we're discussing harassment.
on 10/17/07 1:20 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's hardly "uncivil language" to note that you come to this discussion with unclean hands.
David, you seem to have a fondness for using the word "idiot" or its variations when responding or referring to another person. This language is uncivil, and, once again, sets a poor example.
Marc Riddell
On 10/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an "attack site" is a necessary move. You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary choices.
Let's not engage in uncivil language with each other while we're discussing harassment.
on 10/17/07 1:20 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's hardly "uncivil language" to note that you come to this discussion with unclean hands.
David, you seem to have a fondness for using the word "idiot" or its variations when responding or referring to another person. This language is uncivil, and, once again, sets a poor example.
Marc Riddell
Let me spin this a bit differently, even...
That sort of language puts people on the defensive (or offensive).
If the objective was to convince Will that he made a mistake, putting him on the defensive by offending at him doesn't accomplish the goal. Defensive people hunker down (or, go offensive back), as a general rule.
It's counterproductive in discussions to use language like that, because it solidifies disagreeing opinions rather than opens people up to introspective self-criticism and behavior changes.
David Gerard wrote:
Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an "attack site" is a necessary move. You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary choices.
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Let's not engage in uncivil language with each other while we're discussing harassment.
on 10/17/07 1:20 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's hardly "uncivil language" to note that you come to this discussion with unclean hands.
On 10/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
David, you seem to have a fondness for using the word "idiot" or its variations when responding or referring to another person. This language is uncivil, and, once again, sets a poor example.
Marc Riddell
on 10/18/07 12:08 AM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Let me spin this a bit differently, even...
That sort of language puts people on the defensive (or offensive).
If the objective was to convince Will that he made a mistake, putting him on the defensive by offending at him doesn't accomplish the goal. Defensive people hunker down (or, go offensive back), as a general rule.
It's counterproductive in discussions to use language like that, because it solidifies disagreeing opinions rather than opens people up to introspective self-criticism and behavior changes.
Excellent points, George.
This is to David. This is not the first time your choice of language has been questioned on this List; and each time you have chosen to ignore the feedback. Why?
Marc Riddell
On 10/17/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That sort of language puts people on the defensive (or offensive).
It may also cause hot (or cold) flashes. Your mileage will vary. :)
If the objective was to convince Will that he made a mistake, putting him on the defensive by offending at him doesn't accomplish the goal.
You are making the unwarranted assumption that he was not already on the defensive. Careful not to give David too much credit.
Defensive people hunker down (or, go offensive back), as a general rule.
It's counterproductive in discussions to use language like that, because it solidifies disagreeing opinions rather than opens people up to introspective self-criticism and behavior changes.
If anybody (on this mailing list or elsewhere) changes their behavior, it will be because they wanted to, not because others demanded it. It's not the sort of thing that commonly happens overnight either. Usually gradually enough to avoid notice, and hardly ever as a result of any one incident.
—C.W.
On 10/17/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That sort of language puts people on the defensive (or offensive).
It may also cause hot (or cold) flashes. Your mileage will vary. :)
If the objective was to convince Will that he made a mistake, putting him on the defensive by offending at him doesn't accomplish the goal.
You are making the unwarranted assumption that he was not already on the defensive. Careful not to give David too much credit.
Defensive people hunker down (or, go offensive back), as a general rule.
It's counterproductive in discussions to use language like that, because it solidifies disagreeing opinions rather than opens people up to introspective self-criticism and behavior changes.
on 10/18/07 11:49 AM, Charlotte Webb at charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
If anybody (on this mailing list or elsewhere) changes their behavior, it will be because they wanted to, not because others demanded it.
Absolutely true, CW.
It's not the sort of thing that commonly happens overnight either. Usually gradually enough to avoid notice, and hardly ever as a result of any one incident.
But the timing of that change also depends on what the person feels or knows they will lose if they don't change it - and if they care.
If they believe they are untouchable, nothing is going to happen - ever.
Marc Riddell
C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Many people occasionally do not realize how others perceive their postings, and some people have actually been known to respond favorably to suggestions.
On 10/18/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 10/17/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That sort of language puts people on the defensive (or offensive).
It may also cause hot (or cold) flashes. Your mileage will vary. :)
If the objective was to convince Will that he made a mistake, putting him on the defensive by offending at him doesn't accomplish the goal.
You are making the unwarranted assumption that he was not already on the defensive. Careful not to give David too much credit.
Defensive people hunker down (or, go offensive back), as a general rule.
It's counterproductive in discussions to use language like that, because it solidifies disagreeing opinions rather than opens people up to introspective self-criticism and behavior changes.
on 10/18/07 11:49 AM, Charlotte Webb at charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
If anybody (on this mailing list or elsewhere) changes their behavior, it will be because they wanted to, not because others demanded it.
Absolutely true, CW.
It's not the sort of thing that commonly happens overnight either. Usually gradually enough to avoid notice, and hardly ever as a result of any one incident.
But the timing of that change also depends on what the person feels or knows they will lose if they don't change it - and if they care.
If they believe they are untouchable, nothing is going to happen - ever.
Marc Riddell
‹C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
This language is uncivil, and, once again, sets a poor example.
Lucky thing most people don't learn by example. Especially here, anybody who's wandered this far from the sandbox probably has sufficient practice conducting themselves [however they usually do], and isn't likely to adopt any new habits, whether positive or mildly delinquent.
—C.W.
on 10/18/07 11:50 AM, Charlotte Webb at charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
This language is uncivil, and, once again, sets a poor example.
Lucky thing most people don't learn by example. Especially here, anybody who's wandered this far from the sandbox probably has sufficient practice conducting themselves [however they usually do], and isn't likely to adopt any new habits, whether positive or mildly delinquent.
Except the more impressionable among us, CW. There are more persons here seeking an identity than you may imagine.
Marc
Will Beback wrote:
I find that many folks in this debate already engage in binary choices: caling all attempt at solving this issue as "BADSITES". I asked you what you though we should do about it and your answer appears to boil down to "nothing". So one way of splitting the issue is those who want to do something and those who want to do nothing.
But I think that's a false split, too.
I believe that everyone involved in this debate wants to do everything we can to minimize and reduce the impact of harassment of our editors. The essential difference is what we believe the extent of "everything we can do" to be. Some of us have concluded, sadly, that it's a nearly empty set, and we're not willing to go and do something that (a) makes no sense or (b) doesn't actually help mitigate the harassment or (c) does hurt the encyclopedia, just so as to seem to be doing *something*.
In particular, I have a real problem with this style of thinking:
1. Site X is behaving really obnoxiously towards our editors. 2. But they're not doing anything that's, like, actually actionable in the Real World's legal systems. 3. They won't stop being mean when we ask them nicely; in fact, they laugh in our face and just act meaner. 4. There's nothing else we can do, so they leave us with no choice but to go for our nuclear weapon: "We're not going to link to you." 5. And if you keep being mean after that, we'll not link to you even more. So there.
Off-wiki harassment is a real and significant problem, no question. But I don't believe that banning links to it does anything to help the problem, and the attempts at bans, as we've seen, lead to all sorts of significant new problems.
Will Beback wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
don't see any comment from you about links outside of article space, so I'm not sure if you are in favor removing those. On the whole, it does appear that you are saying to Wikipedia editors that they must deal with harassment either by growing a thicker skin or by leaving the project. Is that correct?
Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an "attack site" is a necessary move.
You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary choices.
Let's not engage in uncivil language with each other while we're discussing harassment.
Would it be uncivil if he were striving to ensure that Will Beback Won't Beback? ;-)
I find that many folks in this debate already engage in binary choices: caling all attempt at solving this issue as "BADSITES". I asked you what you though we should do about it and your answer appears to boil down to "nothing". So one way of splitting the issue is those who want to do something and those who want to do nothing. If there's something that you think we can do so far as creating a policy, guideline or procedure then please share it with us.
Doing something and doing nothing seems like a meaningful binary. If the wide trend is to do nothing then nothing further needs be done, and peace shall reign in Wikiland. However, if those whose views are contrary to that trend persist in doing something, they should not find solace in the belief that silence is consent. Maybe the silent majority is just exhausted from the harassment of a harassment policy.
Ec
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
don't see any comment from you about links outside of article space, so I'm not sure if you are in favor removing those. On the whole, it does appear that you are saying to Wikipedia editors that they must deal with harassment either by growing a thicker skin or by leaving the project. Is that correct?
Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an "attack site" is a necessary move. You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary choices.
Let's not engage in uncivil language with each other while we're discussing harassment.
The move to remove all links to nielsenhayden.com was a blitheringly idiotic one.
You have apologised, but you show no sign of understanding *why your action was wrong*.
Prove me wrong on that statement. Please state your understanding of why your action was wrong.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
The move to remove all links to nielsenhayden.com was a blitheringly idiotic one.
You have apologised, but you show no sign of understanding *why your action was wrong*.
Prove me wrong on that statement. Please state your understanding of why your action was wrong.
- d.
David, may I suggest that my own views of my errors should not be a factor in crafting policy on Wikipedia. We've both made errors on Wikipedia, and I'm sure we've both apologized as appropriate. If you have a personal reason for making sure I understand those errors correctly then let's pursue this off-list.
W.
On 18/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
The move to remove all links to nielsenhayden.com was a blitheringly idiotic one. You have apologised, but you show no sign of understanding *why your action was wrong*. Prove me wrong on that statement. Please state your understanding of why your action was wrong.
David, may I suggest that my own views of my errors should not be a factor in crafting policy on Wikipedia.
It is, however, entirely relevant when you're proposing policy that would cover a case of your own actions.
So: Please state your understanding of why your actions were wrong.
(This is the third time I've asked.)
We've both made errors on Wikipedia, and I'm sure we've both apologized as appropriate. If you have a personal reason for making sure I understand those errors correctly then let's pursue this off-list.
My reason is that you are here making policy proposals that would cover a case of your own actions. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.
Please state your understanding of why your actions were wrong. You're making proposals for how to deal with such cases in the future, so your thinking on the matter is clearly of direct relevance. I really don't see how you can claim or imply it isn't.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
We've both made errors on Wikipedia, and I'm sure we've both apologized as appropriate. If you have a personal reason for making sure I understand those errors correctly then let's pursue this off-list.
My reason is that you are here making policy proposals that would cover a case of your own actions. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.
Please state your understanding of why your actions were wrong. You're making proposals for how to deal with such cases in the future, so your thinking on the matter is clearly of direct relevance. I really don't see how you can claim or imply it isn't.
- d.
Every policy on Wikipedia applies to every editor. We don't say that those who wish to use citations can't participate in drafting our verifiability standards, or that those who have made or been the target of personal attacks may not participate in revising [[WP:NPA]]. We allow everyone, even sock puppets and anonymous editors, to change our policies if they can find a consensus.
I've explained myself in the past, making a prompt and sincere apology at the time admitting my error, and have made an occasional comment since then. If you think it's important that I understand more then I'd be happy to have a private conversation about it with you. But I don't think that my opinion is worth less because I've been harassed and tried to do something about it. In fact, the opinions of those with experience should count for more.
Making proposal is not a crime, and I'm just trying to move the debate forward. If you don't agree with it then speak against it or don't support it. This isn't a referendum on whether Will Beback was right or wrong for two hours in May. This is an issue that concerns at least dozens of editors who've faced serious off-Wiki harassment due to their editing of the encyclopedia. Let's keep the focus on finding a resolution.
Will
Will Beback wrote:
I don't see any comment from you about links outside of article space, so I'm not sure if you are in favor removing those. On the whole, it does appear that you are saying to Wikipedia editors that they must deal with harassment either by growing a thicker skin or by leaving the project. Is that correct?
I certainly didn't see David say that.
I think a big piece of the dissent here is that there are some pretty widely differing views on what the power of a link is. If there's some vile harassment out there on an external site somewhere, and no matter I how heinous it is, I (and several others in this debate) believe that, most of the time, a link to that external harassment is *not* harassment itself. The external harassment exists whether I link to it or not, and the guilt for the harassment likes solely with its author, not with me for maybe linking to it.
Others, however, seem to feel that by default a link to an external harassment page *is* just as bad as the harassment itself. It's as if it's okay for me to write
Hey, David, did you know that over on davidgerardisapervert.com they're saying you enjoy sex with dead goats?
but if I instead write
Hey, David, did you know that on [http://davidgerardisapervert.com/ perversions/sex_with_dead_goats.html this page] they're saying you enjoy sex with dead goats?
poor helpless David will immediately click the link, and be transported into paroxysms of anguished guilt over what he sees there. (Or something.)
On 10/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
I don't see any comment from you about links outside of article space, so I'm not sure if you are in favor removing those. On the whole, it does appear that you are saying to Wikipedia editors that they must deal with harassment either by growing a thicker skin or by leaving the project. Is that correct?
I certainly didn't see David say that.
I think a big piece of the dissent here is that there are some pretty widely differing views on what the power of a link is. If there's some vile harassment out there on an external site somewhere, and no matter I how heinous it is, I (and several others in this debate) believe that, most of the time, a link to that external harassment is *not* harassment itself. The external harassment exists whether I link to it or not, and the guilt for the harassment likes solely with its author, not with me for maybe linking to it.
Others, however, seem to feel that by default a link to an external harassment page *is* just as bad as the harassment itself. It's as if it's okay for me to write
Hey, David, did you know that over on davidgerardisapervert.com they're saying you enjoy sex with dead goats?but if I instead write
Hey, David, did you know that on [http://davidgerardisapervert.com/ perversions/sex_with_dead_goats.html this page] they're saying you enjoy sex with dead goats?poor helpless David will immediately click the link, and be transported into paroxysms of anguished guilt over what he sees there. (Or something.)
Fifty quatloos to the man who buys that domain and puts some salacious content there.
One hundred, and a large alcoholic drink of your choice, if it's David himself.
On 17/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Fifty quatloos to the man who buys that domain and puts some salacious content there. One hundred, and a large alcoholic drink of your choice, if it's David himself.
That would involve spending money. .co.uk is a lot cheaper.
- d.
On 10/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Fifty quatloos to the man who buys that domain and puts some salacious content there. One hundred, and a large alcoholic drink of your choice, if it's David himself.
That would involve spending money. .co.uk is a lot cheaper.
- d.
That would be close enough.
Steve Summit wrote:
but if I instead write
Hey, David, did you know that on [http://davidgerardisapervert.com/ perversions/sex_with_dead_goats.html this page] they're saying you enjoy sex with dead goats?
poor helpless David will immediately click the link, and be transported into paroxysms of anguished guilt over what he sees there. (Or something.)
Perhaps those paroxysms will be of laughter.
Ec
On 10/16/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Really, the problem with the BADSITES advocates claiming "our position is not BADSITES, it was written by a troll" is that they then follow with actions indistinguishable from BADSITES, and which ignore reductio ad absurdum.
These people seriously wish to trash NPOV and consensus (or even "consensus") for ... what precisely?
- d.
Have you offered a solution? Are the only two positions on this issue BADSITES or THICKSKIN? With the possible exceptions of a couple of editors, no one enjoys debating this matter, and a resolution that results in a consensus policy would be ideal. What elements do you think would be included in a good policy on links to external harassment?
Will
Will
The problem is incredibly easy to resolve, the correct answer is that there's no harrassing people, no wikilawyering and no special rules for external links. This is the de facto situation on the ground right now, in terms of outcomes. The only real problem is that getting there makes sausage making look clean.
WilyD
Will Beback wrote:
Have you offered a solution? Are the only two positions on this issue BADSITES or THICKSKIN? With the possible exceptions of a couple of editors, no one enjoys debating this matter, and a resolution that results in a consensus policy would be ideal. What elements do you think would be included in a good policy on links to external harassment?
I agree that more proposals would certainly be a good thing.
Could you say more about the needs you're trying to satisfy with your proposal? Exploring that might lead to some interesting solution.
For example from your proposed solution, I could imagine that it's intended punitively, satisfying a honest human desire for retribution against wrongdoers. Or I could imagine it's meant to reduce harassing behavior, by cowing people whose links we remove. Or I could imagine it is meant as a pure signal of support to editors harassed. Or quite a number of other things.
Regardless, if you could say more about what you'd look for in a solution, we can focus our energies on proposing things that would meet everybody's needs.
Thanks,
William
Will Beback wrote:
Have you offered a solution? Are the only two positions on this issue BADSITES or THICKSKIN? ... What elements do you think would be included in a good policy on links to external harassment?
I was asking exactly the same question last night in this post, which was on a distant leaf of the thread tree which perhaps no one read:
* * *
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:18:38 -0400
I may be very stupid, but I'm still not seeing why we need more policy here. We've already got WP:NPA, which says that that a link which serves as an attack (my means of pointed reference to an off-site attack) is tantamount to an on-wiki personal attack, and is prohibited. We've already got WP:RS, which works hard to define what a reliable source is, and which says that blogs generally aren't.
So what more do we need? Which elements of the policy formerly known as BADSITES do we need to preserve, and why? What is the cost (in false positives, unexpected consequences, or general inconvenience) of those elements? What is the cost (in terms of potential editor harassment, or other imagined travails) if we don't adopt those elements?
I'm aware of three such elements, are there others?
1. WP:NPA only talks about links which serve as attacks. But we need to ban *all* links to attack sites, even when the links aren't meant to attack, even when they're to pages on the attack sites which aren't attacks.
2. WP:RS only talks about links in article space. But we need to ban links to attack sites from anywhere, including talk and project pages.
3. Removal of any links covered by the policy formerly known as BADSITES should not be subject to the three-revert rule.
(Me, I disagree pretty vehemently with at least the first two of these elements, but the arguments against them have been posted ad nauseam, so I'll not rehearse them here.)
Will Beback wrote:
Have you offered a solution? Are the only two positions on this issue BADSITES or THICKSKIN?
We are not, I hope, asking harassed editors to have a thick skin, to ignore the harassment, to ignore it and hope it will go away. *BUT*, if a harassed editor's skin is so papery thin that a single link to some external harassment, inserted for reference in a non-article-space discussion of that harassment, is construed by that editor as cause for further anguish, I'm not sure what we can do for that editor. In particular: in the process of discussing (not ignoring) the harassment and formulating plans to minimize or eliminate it, we're going to have to talk about it, and we're going to have to include links where relevant, because links are as vital in web-based discourse as bibliographic references are on paper.
On 16/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
We are not, I hope, asking harassed editors to have a thick skin, to ignore the harassment, to ignore it and hope it will go away. *BUT*, if a harassed editor's skin is so papery thin that a single link to some external harassment, inserted for reference in a non-article-space discussion of that harassment, is construed by that editor as cause for further anguish, I'm not sure what we can do for that editor. In particular: in the process of discussing (not ignoring) the harassment and formulating plans to minimize or eliminate it, we're going to have to talk about it, and we're going to have to include links where relevant, because links are as vital in web-based discourse as bibliographic references are on paper.
We have to recognise that in the present discussion, the degree of sensitivity has in fact reached the stage of actually being community *versus* encyclopedia content.
- d.
One issue is that, with lots of contributors and the place being too big for everyone to know everything that goes on, new people regularly rediscover blown-up controversy written in certain notorious off-Wiki places and cause a fuss about it - in many cases because they don't realize the unreliability and maliciousness of those accounts, and in some cases because they do and like the drama, or like the fact that the external site criticises someone they don't like.
We do need to shut down such things quickly; constant rehashing of stale issues and false accusations is damaging, harmful and pointless. However, the best way of doing that seems to me to be (a) to document somewhere that site <whatever> is a known malicious and unreliable source and things there should not be trusted, and (b) to close such discussions down politely and inform people why we don't want such issues brought up again.
Wikipedia needs the minimal-drama way of doing this. We have a job to do, and that job isn't squabbling endlessly or obsessing constantly about the minutia of our affairs and what others are saying about us. Such sites as Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Antisocialmedia are best *ignored* as irrelevant to our real job of writing an encyclopedia.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
Wikipedia needs the minimal-drama way of doing this. We have a job to do, and that job isn't squabbling endlessly or obsessing constantly about the minutia of our affairs and what others are saying about us. Such sites as Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Antisocialmedia are best *ignored* as irrelevant to our real job of writing an encyclopedia.
Or, stated another way: We have a job to do, and that job isn't squabbling endlessly or obsessing constantly about the minutia of our affairs. Such sites as Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Antisocialmedia are the best places to do that; it's their job. Let's get on with ours, namely writing an encyclopedia.
on 10/16/07 3:41 PM, Matthew Brown at morven@gmail.com wrote:
One issue is that, with lots of contributors and the place being too big for everyone to know everything that goes on, new people regularly rediscover blown-up controversy written in certain notorious off-Wiki places and cause a fuss about it - in many cases because they don't realize the unreliability and maliciousness of those accounts, and in some cases because they do and like the drama, or like the fact that the external site criticises someone they don't like.
We do need to shut down such things quickly; constant rehashing of stale issues and false accusations is damaging, harmful and pointless. However, the best way of doing that seems to me to be (a) to document somewhere that site <whatever> is a known malicious and unreliable source and things there should not be trusted, and (b) to close such discussions down politely and inform people why we don't want such issues brought up again.
Wikipedia needs the minimal-drama way of doing this. We have a job to do, and that job isn't squabbling endlessly or obsessing constantly about the minutia of our affairs and what others are saying about us.
Yes, we are better than that!
Such sites as Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Antisocialmedia are best *ignored* as irrelevant to our real job of writing an encyclopedia.
Absolutely! And very well said, Matthew.
Marc Riddell
Matthew Brown wrote:
However, the best way of doing that seems to me to be (a) to document somewhere that site <whatever> is a known malicious and unreliable source and things there should not be trusted, and (b) to close such discussions down politely and inform people why we don't want such issues brought up again.
I think this would be a great approach. If we have a superpower, it's documenting things.
The remedy also fits in well with how we handle a lot of conversations that are both perennial and annoying. Instead of deleting the comment, somebody just says, "That's already been discussed thoroughly at WP:XYZ. Consensus seems pretty established, but bring it up there if you want to change things."
William
On 10/16/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
However, the best way of doing that seems to me to be (a) to document somewhere that site <whatever> is a known malicious and unreliable source and things there should not be trusted, and (b) to close such discussions down politely and inform people why we don't want such issues brought up again.
I think this would be a great approach. If we have a superpower, it's documenting things.
The remedy also fits in well with how we handle a lot of conversations that are both perennial and annoying. Instead of deleting the comment, somebody just says, "That's already been discussed thoroughly at WP:XYZ. Consensus seems pretty established, but bring it up there if you want to change things."
Perhaps something along the lines of having, at [[Wikipedia:ObnoxiousUVW]]:
"ObnoxiousUVW is a site that, while claiming to be a site for objective criticism of Wikipedia, is a de facto gathering point for banned users and others harboring grudges. The format of ObnoxiousUVW, which allows users to self-publish content, has been frequently abused to spread malicious gossip and personal attacks on various Wikipedia users, and has been linked to one attempt to destroy the real-world career of an admin as retaliation for actions in the normal course of that admin's duties.
For these and other reasons, ObnoxiousUVW is considered blacklisted; it may not be linked to from the article space except as a proper source, and even then only when other reliable sources do not exist.
It should be noted that some of the criticisms raised at ObnoxiousUVW have turned out to be valid, and we have attempted to fix serious problems pointed out to us from there as expeditiously as any other.
Linking to a page at ObnoxiousUVW containing attacks or accusations against Wikipedia editors is usually seen in the same light as repeating said accusations on-wiki; specifically, as a violation of WP:NPA. If you come across one of these which seems to have novel information, be sure to check the timestamp; if it is any more than a couple days old, Wikipedia editors are likely already familiar with it, and have dealt with it if it needs dealing with.
Information on previous dealings is available at [public link 1] and [public link 2]. Further information may be provided through less-public channels in response to legitimate inquiries, but we discourage idle curiosity or fishing expeditions, and may ignore inquiries from users without reputations.
While we look for detente and reconciliation with each of the individual participants of ObnoxiousUVW, we must, at least until the behavioral ethos of ObnoxiousUVW changes, deny ObnoxiousUVW the attention it tries to thrive on. Please restrict all on-wiki discussion of ObnoxiousUVW to [[Wikipedia_talk:ObnoxiousUVW]].
Thank you, the ArbCom"
Have one of these pages for each of the half-dozen or so potential values of ObnoxiousUVW, of course changing the bill of indictment and enforced remedies to reflect each individual case. (Also, copyedit my crappy prose into something readable. :-) ) Indefinitely full-protect the page itself, and have a few admins with oversight watchlist the talk page to deal with the inevitable trolls it would attract. (Sprotect the talk page? Seems antithetical to me.)
We would, of course have to exercise due caution over wordings; while I would fully support seeing the phrase "the internet would be better off if these wankers just went away, but free speech lets us know who the assholes are" on the ED factsheet, we could not actually refer to any individual as a sociopath, no matter how richly they may warrant the label. :-p
Does this seem workable? It fights bad speech with good speech instead of suppression, lays out clearly what the community's expectations are, gives a statement of support to our attacked users, and leverages our ability to create neutral, factual documentation of contentious subjects (and our reputation for doing so competently.) This seems to cover all of the concerns of both the supporters and opponents of BADSITES-like policies, which makes me simultaneously hopeful and dead certain that I'm missing something. Further input is most certainly welcome.
Will Beback wrote:
Really, the problem with the BADSITES advocates claiming "our position is not BADSITES, it was written by a troll" is that they then follow with actions indistinguishable from BADSITES, and which ignore reductio ad absurdum.
These people seriously wish to trash NPOV and consensus (or even "consensus") for ... what precisely?
Have you offered a solution? Are the only two positions on this issue BADSITES or THICKSKIN? With the possible exceptions of a couple of editors, no one enjoys debating this matter,
Are you prepared to be guided by that advice?
and a resolution that results in a consensus policy would be ideal. What elements do you think would be included in a good policy on links to external harassment?
One could begin with a clear and unambiguous definition of harassment.
Ec
Will Beback wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
What does the link to michaelmoore.com contribute to the encyclopedia? It isn't being used as a source for the article.
The same thing the list of books an academic has published contributes to the encyclopedia: a mention of notable publications by notable people are something that no complete article should omit.
I personally don't care if you format it as a link or not, just as I don't care whether you link ISBNs to [[Special:Booksources]] or not. But lists of publications, including notable websites, should remain in the article textually at least.
-Mark
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:47 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
I'm not sure how that could really work, though. The point of gathering the community is to write the encyclopedia. It may be useful to pretend otherwise at times, but that's actually the purpose.
-d.
on 10/15/07 3:27 PM, fredbaud@waterwiki.info at fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Absolutely, Fred!
Marc
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 3:27 PM, fredbaud@waterwiki.info at fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Absolutely, Fred!
Marc
Expect we know that individual bits of the community are expendable.
On 10/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/15/07 3:27 PM, fredbaud@waterwiki.info at fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Absolutely, Fred!
Marc
Expect we know that individual bits of the community are expendable.
That is, from a high level view, both true and false.
It's true in the sense that people leave the project and are replaced by normal volunteer work shifting processes. We can replace anyone we lose, essentially.
It's not true to the extent that allowing or sitting passively by during legitimate abuse situations causes harm to both our internal community as a whole (people see "the Foundation" or "English Wikipedia" or "Jimmy" or whoever as not caring) and our reputation outside the project.
It's unfortunately not simple.