-----Original Message----- From: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 02:41 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
I got the impression that Agger takes much of Brandt's conclusions at face value ("likely MI-5 agent").
Johnleemk
I think that's an accurate impression. They take it in. Hook, line and sinker.
There is an assumption that editing by an MI5 agent is somehow a grave and unacceptable event. While this particular incident is an apparent fantasy, there is little doubt that a number of editors are here to similarly influence our content on behalf of both public and private advocacy groups.
Fred
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: John Lee
I got the impression that Agger takes much of Brandt's conclusions at face value ("likely MI-5 agent").
Johnleemk
I think that's an accurate impression. They take it in. Hook, line and sinker.
There is an assumption that editing by an MI5 agent is somehow a grave and unacceptable event. While this particular incident is an apparent fantasy, there is little doubt that a number of editors are here to similarly influence our content on behalf of both public and private advocacy groups.
The inability of internet readers to recognize ironic writing contributes to this kind of conspiracy theorizing. Focussing on one paragraph out of context from a much larger article seems to be a favourite tactic. Suggesting that someone is revealed as an MI-5 agent stretches plausibility, and impugns the credibility of the person who is cited as having made that claim.
Sure people edit Wikipedia to further the interests of a particular group, and many of them understand that being blatant about it will be counter-productive. Still, what is said in those instances remains more important than who said it, and verification still attaches to the content rather than the editor.
Taking ironic or symbolic writing as literal truth yields silly results. Wasn't that the whole point of the Scopes trial? Suggesting that we need to take steps to protect ourselves or our editors from such activity requires as a precondition that we be able to distinguish between literal and ironic writing . Failing in that task leaves us paranoid about imagined conspiracies trying to undermine Wikipedia.
Ec
On Oct 11, 2007, at 6:16 AM, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I think that's an accurate impression. They take it in. Hook, line and sinker.
And why shouldn't they? It's not like we give them a single reason not to.
At this point, the claim has been raised in multiple high-profile sources, and now in a reliable source. Yes, we know Brandt is a nutter. But we are a very small percentage of the Wikipedia userbase, little yet of the world. And the censorious approach we have taken on this matter, led mostly by SlimVirgin herself, is increasingly proving idiotic at best and disastrous at worst.
Seriously. This entire problem would have gone away if SlimVirgin hadn't been so idiotically thin skinned about it and had actually made some sort of fucking comment on the subject instead of trying to suppress the entire discussion. And, because SlimVirgin is a friend of many of us, far too many of us (myself included) went along with her poor judgment and deferred to her desire for privacy by aiding in removing all mentions of this accusation. That was wrong of us, and that bad judgment has bitten us on the ass several times already.
Nobody is seriously suggesting that Brandt, Bagley, or any other nutjob running an attack site be taken seriously. But we can do a better job of confronting them than removing all links to them. If somebody who is smart enough and respected enough to write the headline story for Slate can fall for Brandt's shit, it's probably time for us to wake up and realize that Brandt is pretty good at what he does, and needs a response beyond censorship.
But no. Instead we have a member of the arbitration committee advocating a policy that has already shown itself to be idiotic at best and disastrous at worst.
-Phil
On 10/11/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2007, at 6:16 AM, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I think that's an accurate impression. They take it in. Hook, line and sinker.
And why shouldn't they? It's not like we give them a single reason not to.
At this point, the claim has been raised in multiple high-profile sources, and now in a reliable source. Yes, we know Brandt is a nutter. But we are a very small percentage of the Wikipedia userbase, little yet of the world. And the censorious approach we have taken on this matter, led mostly by SlimVirgin herself, is increasingly proving idiotic at best and disastrous at worst.
Seriously. This entire problem would have gone away if SlimVirgin hadn't been so idiotically thin skinned about it and had actually made some sort of fucking comment on the subject instead of trying to suppress the entire discussion. And, because SlimVirgin is a friend of many of us, far too many of us (myself included) went along with her poor judgment and deferred to her desire for privacy by aiding in removing all mentions of this accusation. That was wrong of us, and that bad judgment has bitten us on the ass several times already.
Nobody is seriously suggesting that Brandt, Bagley, or any other nutjob running an attack site be taken seriously. But we can do a better job of confronting them than removing all links to them. If somebody who is smart enough and respected enough to write the headline story for Slate can fall for Brandt's shit, it's probably time for us to wake up and realize that Brandt is pretty good at what he does, and needs a response beyond censorship.
But no. Instead we have a member of the arbitration committee advocating a policy that has already shown itself to be idiotic at best and disastrous at worst.
-Phil
While I agree that the mishandling of stalking / abuse situations has largely gotten us where we are today, I would have hoped to see people make that point in a civil and respectful manner rather than crossing the line into blaming the vicitms as you did above, Phil.
This was not constructive, even if it was wrapped around an important point.
George Herbert wrote:
While I agree that the mishandling of stalking / abuse situations has largely gotten us where we are today, I would have hoped to see people make that point in a civil and respectful manner rather than crossing the line into blaming the vicitms as you did above, Phil.
This was not constructive, even if it was wrapped around an important point.
Actually, I think it *was* constructive. It's a point I've wanted to make (perhaps not so harshly) for a long time, but I've been too chicken to make it at all.
I don't know Slim Virgin well enough to know whether she's a reasonable person or a drama queen, so I GFly assume that she's a reasonable person. So I'm not talking about Slim Virgin here. But.
If we Absolutely Must Not blame a victim, if we Absolutely Must protect them, if we Absolutely Must accept their definition of their own victimhood, then we're rather powerless against being drawn inexorably into disastrously downspiraling drama-queenish situations if we ever have the misfortune of getting involved with someone who is simultaneously (a) a legitimate and comfortworthy victim and (b) deranged.
We can't structure the debate so that any dissent with the opinions of a victim is cause for accusation of having blamed that victim. We shouldn't allow such dissenters to be equated with rapists (as has been repeatedly done in the whole drawn-out meta-BADSITES debate). If the emperor has no clothes, or if the victim has no sense, we've got to be willing to say so.
So far I haven't said so, because I've been too paranoid about being labeled a victim-blamer or a rape apologist. But I salute Phil for saying so, and I emphatically agree, and I guess I do have to talk about Slim Virgin for a moment after all: if the policy-that-can't-be-called-BADSITES makes no logical sense, if no one (not even its supporters) favors the deleterious potential repercussions which it would be all too likely to have, if the only reason for clinging desperately to the policy is that otherwise Slim Virgin, a respected and longtime contributor, might be badly offended, then I'm terribly sorry, but Slim, I'm afraid you're going to have to be offended (some more).
Steve Summit wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
While I agree that the mishandling of stalking / abuse situations has largely gotten us where we are today, I would have hoped to see people make that point in a civil and respectful manner rather than crossing the line into blaming the vicitms as you did above, Phil.
This was not constructive, even if it was wrapped around an important point.
Actually, I think it *was* constructive. It's a point I've wanted to make (perhaps not so harshly) for a long time, but I've been too chicken to make it at all.
Thanks, I've been thinking it too.
Empathy is a wonderful thing, one of the finest traits a person can possess. But it sometimes has its downside and this is IMO one of them; the elevation of victims and victimhood to a kind of sacred status. People who have suffered abuses of various sorts deserve sympathy, but as with all things it's possible to go overboard.
I don't know Slim Virgin well enough to know whether she's a reasonable person or a drama queen, so I GFly assume that she's a reasonable person. So I'm not talking about Slim Virgin here. But.
There have been other recent cases with much more clear-cut drama, the TOR issue with Armed Blowfish for example. Armed Blowfish eventually wound up on moderation so I think it's safe to say that it went well beyond reasonableness.
So far I haven't said so, because I've been too paranoid about being labeled a victim-blamer or a rape apologist.
I actually _have_ been called a rape apologist in a previous thread on this subject, or at least I was analogized to one, and then was accused of attacking people when I complained about it. So I guess I'm a victim too, yay.
(IIRC I did get an apology for at least some of that and I considered it sufficient.
Steve Summit wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
While I agree that the mishandling of stalking / abuse situations has largely gotten us where we are today, I would have hoped to see people make that point in a civil and respectful manner rather than crossing the line into blaming the vicitms as you did above, Phil.
This was not constructive, even if it was wrapped around an important point.
Actually, I think it *was* constructive. It's a point I've wanted to make (perhaps not so harshly) for a long time, but I've been too chicken to make it at all.
I don't know Slim Virgin well enough to know whether she's a reasonable person or a drama queen, so I GFly assume that she's a reasonable person. So I'm not talking about Slim Virgin here. But.
One observation that I have made about this latest go-round on the mailing list is that Slim has _not_ participated. Whether she has elsewhere I don't know. It all suggests to me that the topic has taken on a life of its own, and she would be just as happy to see her name disappear from the discussion. I suspect too that she has learned the lesson of not feeding trolls, whether or not the participants really are trolls.
Ec
George Herbert wrote:
While I agree that the mishandling of stalking / abuse situations has largely gotten us where we are today, I would have hoped to see people make that point in a civil and respectful manner rather than crossing the line into blaming the vicitms as you did above, Phil.
This was not constructive, even if it was wrapped around an important point.
I'm glad you're pushing for civility, but I think you might be misusing the phrase a little, George.
Traditionally, "blaming the victim" involves saying the victim deserved the bad things that happened to them. The classic example is saying that a rape victim "was asking for it", perhaps by the way she dressed. That's an abhorrent thing.
What I heard Phil expressing was his dissatisfaction with her behavior in response to her maltreatment. And more strongly, he was condemning his behavior and that of others in response to what she did. So although he did assign SV part of the blame for what went on, I don't think he was blaming the victim in the usual sense of that term.
William
On 10/11/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody is seriously suggesting that Brandt, Bagley, or any other nutjob running an attack site be taken seriously. But we can do a better job of confronting them than removing all links to them. If somebody who is smart enough and respected enough to write the headline story for Slate can fall for Brandt's shit, it's probably time for us to wake up and realize that Brandt is pretty good at what he does, and needs a response beyond censorship.
I think you should consider that and then consider apologizing for calling me a troll because I've taken Brandt seriously.
If Brandt is full of shit, prove it. Feel free to do this privately if you'd like.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Anthony wrote:
I think you should consider that and then consider apologizing for calling me a troll because I've taken Brandt seriously.
You misunderstand.
I called you a troll because you've been trolling Wikipedia for nearly four years now.
Taking Brandt seriously is not the reason I called you a troll - it's just the trolling you happen to be engaged in at this moment.
-Phil
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Anthony wrote:
I think you should consider that and then consider apologizing for calling me a troll because I've taken Brandt seriously.
You misunderstand.
I called you a troll because you've been trolling Wikipedia for nearly four years now.
Taking Brandt seriously is not the reason I called you a troll - it's just the trolling you happen to be engaged in at this moment.
LMAO. You could have at least looked at the message you sent previously before saying this: "You are smart enough to know this, and so I can only assume you've returned to needlessly trolling the list." I didn't misunderstand. You've changed your position. A good reason for me and others not to take *you* seriously.