LDan wrote:
Our contributers have views, all of them. Just because someone's views are expressed in their username doesn't mean they should be banned.
Where did I say that they should be banned? Changing a user name does not ban the user. Think of it as a dress code; the great majority of employers do not allow their employees to wear shirts expressing controversial opinions. Why? Because it is disruptive and creates divisiveness in the workplace.
If people didn't like wikipedia because usernames might reveal something about them, then shouldn't I change my username to something not implying I'm a child? After all, children, just like christians, can't write good encyclopedia articles.
Where did that come from? Please lay off the straw men.
You're offended because someone is expressing that view? I'm against religion is school, but this is like telling people they can't say they have a religion when they're in the classroom.
Saying something on a talk page or a mailing list post is rather different from having your name itself make a POV statement /all the time/ in every context.
Jesus is Lord! is just a slogan,
And a slogan does not a user name make. It is s /slogan/, not a name. A slogan servers a POV evocative purpose while a name serves a nominative one.
and it's not like telling people "You have to believe in Jesus, otherwise you're going to go to hell".
Funny, I get told that often by people who wear "Jesus is Lord!" t-shirts.
Simply put; user names should not be slogans.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
So you would support a rule against any user name constituting an opinion?
-evil saltine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 5:25 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] User names
LDan wrote:
Our contributers have views, all of them. Just because someone's views are expressed in their username doesn't mean they should be banned.
Where did I say that they should be banned? Changing a user name does not
ban
the user. Think of it as a dress code; the great majority of employers do
not
allow their employees to wear shirts expressing controversial opinions.
Why?
Because it is disruptive and creates divisiveness in the workplace.
If people didn't like wikipedia because usernames might reveal something about them, then shouldn't I change my username to something not implying I'm a child? After all, children, just like christians, can't write good encyclopedia articles.
Where did that come from? Please lay off the straw men.
You're offended because someone is expressing that view? I'm against religion is school, but this is like telling people they can't say they have a religion when they're in the classroom.
Saying something on a talk page or a mailing list post is rather different from having your name itself make a POV statement /all the time/ in every context.
Jesus is Lord! is just a slogan,
And a slogan does not a user name make. It is s /slogan/, not a name. A
slogan
servers a POV evocative purpose while a name serves a nominative one.
and it's not like telling people "You have to believe in Jesus, otherwise you're going to go to hell".
Funny, I get told that often by people who wear "Jesus is Lord!" t-shirts.
Simply put; user names should not be slogans.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I would.
RickK
Andrew imthesponge@hotmail.com wrote:
So you would support a rule against any user name constituting an opinion?
-evil saltine
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
I would.
RickK
Andrew imthesponge@hotmail.com wrote:
So you would support a rule against any user name constituting an opinion?
-evil saltine
That's bit broad, don't you think? Wikipedians are allowed to have opinions. I see no reason why usernames should be NPOV. I think this would be a serious violation of freedom of speech. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Wikipedia is a privately-owned entity. Although we treat it as a democracy (and even an anarchy), it is not a governmental agency, and you have no "right" to do anything.
RickK
Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Rick wrote:
I would.
RickK
Andrew wrote:
So you would support a rule against any user name constituting an opinion?
-evil saltine
That's bit broad, don't you think? Wikipedians are allowed to have opinions. I see no reason why usernames should be NPOV. I think this would be a serious violation of freedom of speech. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
RickK wrote:
LittleDan wrote:
That's bit broad, don't you think? Wikipedians are allowed to have opinions. I see no reason why usernames should be NPOV. I think this would be a serious violation of freedom of speech.
Wikipedia is a privately-owned entity. Although we treat it as a democracy (and even an anarchy), it is not a governmental agency, and you have no "right" to do anything.
It follows, of course, that we have no legal obligation to give users freedom of speech in any of various ways. This says nothing about whether that would be a good idea. LittleDan is entirely correct to say that this violates freedom of speech. As to whether the violation is serious, people may discuss that, but the lack of a legal requirement for free speech isn't enough. As Jimbo has said in another context, "Freedom works.", and that's true even when it's /not/ legally required.
-- Toby
Rick wrote:
I would.
RickK
*/Andrew imthesponge@hotmail.com/* wrote:
So you would support a rule against any user name constituting an opinion? -evil saltine
You tell 'em, RickK! Certainly Andrew there should not be allowed to use a name advocating the qualities "manly, valiant, courageous." On the other tentacle, of course, the name "Richard" expresses the opinion that its bearer is a "powerful ruler; brave one"....
--~~~~ the Epopt, who has not, in fact, been initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries
1. Those are not opinions.
2. Even if they were, they would not be construed as opinions by the standard user of the system.
RickK
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote: Rick wrote:
I would.
RickK
*/Andrew /* wrote:
So you would support a rule against any user name constituting an opinion?
-evil saltine
You tell 'em, RickK! Certainly Andrew there should not be allowed to use a name advocating the qualities "manly, valiant, courageous." On the other tentacle, of course, the name "Richard" expresses the opinion that its bearer is a "powerful ruler; brave one"....
--~~~~ the Epopt, who has not, in fact, been initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
They are opinions. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick To: English Wikipedia Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User names
1. Those are not opinions.
2. Even if they were, they would not be construed as opinions by the standard user of the system.
RickK
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote: Rick wrote: > I would. > > RickK > > */Andrew /* wrote: > > So you would support a rule against any user name constituting an > opinion? > > -evil saltine
You tell 'em, RickK! Certainly Andrew there should not be allowed to use a name advocating the qualities "manly, valiant, courageous." On the other tentacle, of course, the name "Richard" expresses the opinion that its bearer is a "powerful ruler; brave one"....
--~~~~ the Epopt, who has not, in fact, been initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm somewhat surprised this whole thing didn't break out earlier... I normally oppose pretty much every form of censorship. I think that those offended easily are weak-minded and need to toughen up. However, there is a case for "professionalism"... too many of the masses who could make use are excessively PC, PR-sensitive types. It's a tricky question, and with absolute rulings leading, as absolutes tend to, to insanity (see the postings where people's first names are called opinions), we have to find a sensible middle ground. I found 'Jesus is Lord!' a little much... but I dislike the name more for style than content. I don't like it, but don't know that ruling it out is a good idea. 'Drolsi Susej' works for me... subtlety goes a long way, and it becomes a unique identifier. 'Liberal' is fine. If someone new came in to use that, I'd have absolutely no issue. I strongly oppose people having multiple names, however... (Jimbo's the only one who I can see as having a valid reason to.) 'Non-liberals are stupid' is unacceptable. There is no question in my mind that if any username should be disallowed, this one should be. TMC and Saddam were both clear cases.
And LDan: Chronological age is no big factor (at least not to me, and I feel not to many), which is much of why I dislike when people call actions 'childlike', 'juvenile', or 'immature'... hell, I'm still a teenager (until Saturday).
-- Jake
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Where did I say that they should be banned? Changing a user name does not ban the user. Think of it as a dress code; the great majority of employers do not allow their employees to wear shirts expressing controversial opinions.
I think this is a good analogy.
And, as Wikipedia is not our employer, I think imposing a dress code is inappropriate.
There was recently a discussion on one of the Debian mailing lists about having a dress code for people on the Debian stand at some Expo or other. There was a strong consensus against this idea.
-M-
Agian-- to everyone. It has nothing to do with a dress code, or setting static standards against names. The standard is consensus. If we think Stevertigo is an offensive name, you can go ahead and add a slash /namechange in my userspace and ask people to vote on whether its appropriate for WP. Who decides whats appropriate, and where the line is? The people do! with EACH VOTE! what a novel idea! There will be no page anywhere that says a name with FUCK in it will be banned or changed. There is an implicit reservation of Wikipedians to ask for a namechange if theres enough votes for it. Does the word FUCK offend me? Of course not! Will I vote "change" on a vote? You bet. Jesus is Lord, even though its not an offensive statement (especially if you undersand Christian Biblespeak and know what it means to say) got 19 votes against (regardless of the reason) and this is reason enough to change it. Some here and on that talk would have been right to get at the point that those against were not offended-- and were only supposing "offense" --but even this was disingenous, given that everyone here knows what the word "inflammatory" means.
~S~
mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Daniel Mayer wrote:
Where did I say that they should be banned? Changing a user name does not ban the user. Think of it as a dress code; the great majority of employers do not allow their employees to wear shirts expressing controversial opinions.
I think this is a good analogy.
And, as Wikipedia is not our employer, I think imposing a dress code is inappropriate.
There was recently a discussion on one of the Debian mailing lists about having a dress code for people on the Debian stand at some Expo or other. There was a strong consensus against this idea.
-M-
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Yeah, /I/ know what it means? Do you???
If you dont think "Jesus is Lord!" (dont forget the exclamation !) isnt inflamatory-- I dont know what to tell you. Youre usually pretty straightforward and practical Toby--in this case you seem to be making a strange quasi-principled argument against a policy -- let me repeat it-- 1. Wikipedians can vote to change a username. 2. There are no standards, save the will of the community. The second one require some wikitrust or better yet: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikifaith
So, maybe LD's experiment was useful after all-- but only to prove my original point (which isnt really "my" point alone, is it-- 19 to 5 vote ) that "WP reserves the right to rename you. " ie: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toby_Bartels/namechange
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Stevertigo wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Yeah, /I/ know what it means? Do you???
If you dont think "Jesus is Lord!" (dont forget the exclamation !) isnt inflamatory-- I dont know what to tell you.
Eh, that post was a bit over the top, and not very sensible. I think that I meant that it seemed rather circular to claim that a name must be changed because it's "inflammatory" ("of a nature to rouse passion, anger, or animosity" -- OED) when the only passion, anger, and animosity that it raised was in the business of changing names in the first place. There was no mention (there was eventually, but late in the process) of any emotions being aroused by the name /other/ than the desire to ban it on the grounds that it was "inflammatory".
But that is hardly what I said; which, as I mentioned, was not very coherent. And was overly combative. And rude. Sorry about that.
Youre usually pretty straightforward and practical Toby--in this case you seem to be making a strange quasi-principled argument against a policy -- let me repeat it-- 1. Wikipedians can vote to change a username. 2. There are no standards, save the will of the community.
Yes, I am absolutely arguing against that policy. A more detailed case, from principle, is in my most recent post, which is a lengthy reply to a post from mav.
The second one require some wikitrust or better yet: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikifaith
According to that article, Wikifaith is faith in the wiki process. That's neither here nor there when it comes to personal usernames. I have a great deal of faith in the wiki process these days -- more than I did when I first heard of it! ^_^
I also have faith that Wikipedia will generally do the right thing; perhaps that is what you meant. To the extent that money measures faith, note that I made the largest charitable contribution of my life to date (by a factor of more than 3) on the basis of this faith, last week. Still, this faith is not blind.
So, maybe LD's experiment was useful after all-- but only to prove my original point (which isnt really "my" point alone, is it-- 19 to 5 vote ) that "WP reserves the right to rename you. " ie: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toby_Bartels/namechange
See, if that ever /really/ went through, I would leave. Hell, if it were ever a serious issue, I'd lose a lot of faith (in Wikipedia, but not much in the wiki process in general). OK, that might not be entirely without doubt; I know the danger of making absolute statements. But I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible situation where such a name change would be remotely a good idea -- I mean for the community to attempt to impose on me by force.
I suspect that the world would be a better place if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules. If people couldn't do anything to change Drolsi's old name /other/ than to talk to him on a personal basis and try to convince him that it would be a good idea, then that might have been what people tried in the first place! This suspicion, like the rambling at the end of my reply to mav, is also much broader than just Wikipedia -- and as in that case, Wikipedia is much closer to my ideal than most insitutions are. This is even -- dare I say it? -- a big part of Wikifaith to me. In wikis, people /can't/ stop others from editing their text; and this forces collaboration instead of single authorship. Instituting banning and page protection -- even if necessary, in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad thing too, like anythin that interferes with the wiki process (in which I have so much faith).
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
I think that I meant that it seemed rather circular to claim that a name must be changed because it's "inflammatory" ("of a nature to rouse passion, anger, or animosity" -- OED) when the only passion, anger, and animosity that it raised was in the business of changing names in the first place.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary ;)
There was no mention (there was eventually, but late in the process) of any emotions being aroused by the name /other/ than the desire to ban it on the grounds that it was "inflammatory".
Wikipedia is not an emotionary either.
But that is hardly what I said; which, as I mentioned, was not very coherent. And was overly combative. And rude. Sorry about that.
No-- you were just too quick to type back in retort -- like LD was. You both are gracious enough to recognize it and apologise for the minor miscommunications along the way, and I am admirous of both of you for having the fortitude to do so.
Yes, I am absolutely arguing against that policy. A more detailed case, from principle, is in my most recent post, which is a lengthy reply to a post from mav.
The best policies are simple. Where subjective concerns are dealt with, we need consensus. There is no way around it--these situations will arise, and there will need to be decisions made. Either there will be a community consensus, on what that decision will be, or there will be a Jimbo consensus. This is the choice.
According to that article, Wikifaith is faith in the wiki process.
Its faith in people. Not the process. Wikifaith, as I define it is simply an understanding that "Wiki works" because "people work"-- Wiki is a name for a tool that represents a technological extension of the human spirits of community and collegiality. Changes which act to hamper this are rooted in mistrust, and are for lack of a better term "anti-wiki"
That's neither here nor there when it comes to personal usernames. I have a great deal of faith in the wiki process these days -- more than I did when I first heard of it! ^_^
To make the argument that usernames are in some way different is the same as saying that they are special -- in what way are they special? Do they need to be protected? Are they
I also have faith that Wikipedia will generally do the right thing;
I have no faith in the thing called "Wikipedia" whatsoever. My faith is reserved for the people who happen to be on it. Nes pa?
To the extent that money measures faith,
Your donation of "money" (work hours quantified, right) is a good thing. Are you going to compare your donation in anyway to those of others?
See, if that ever /really/ went through, I would leave. Hell, if it were ever a serious issue, I'd lose a lot of faith (in Wikipedia, but not much in the wiki process in general).
Youre an addict, Toby. ;-) Besides-- you make my point-- nothing would come of it. I can whip up some annoying fuss trying to get some support for it, and it will be over like *snap* I'll *bet that the namechange page would even be deleted (as inflammatory vandalism )-- and you and I both know that there needs be "consensus" for such a thing to stand. ;-)
OK, that might not be entirely without doubt;
See?
I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible situation where.... for the community to attempt to impose on me by force.
If we acted unreasonably by your standards, then you would leave. But because were open, we tend to attract rather intelligent people, and this standard of reason would no doubt have to be high. Even in situations where there is a close split (which reminds me: time-limited voting, no anons, no newbies (except the user themself) etc. ) there is still the need for the community to stand by its own policy. This is why its important to hammer it out and-- if I may add-- why your criticisms are valid.
I suspect that the world would be a better place if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules.
Idea: Keep the discussion limited to the context at hand, eh?
If people couldn't do anything to change Drolsi's old name /other/ than to talk to him on a personal basis and try to convince him that it would be a good idea, then that might have been what people tried in the first place!
This is idealistic-- measures to enforce that which is best for wikipedia are in place now-- Jim can pull even pull the plug if its going to be good for wiki. Lets keep perspective here. This is just a name. "There is no G-d-given right to edit Wikipedia" remember. (Tarquin, I think) If your critique is of my approach-- I will acknowledge that I could have been more cordial to JiL.
Instituting banning and page protection -- even if necessary, in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad thing too, like anythin that interferes with the wiki process (in which I have so much faith).
So, under it all-- you oppose banning itself? Then we need a namechange for this thread. Should we take the step of voting on it?
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu That's neither here nor there when it comes to personal usernames. I have a great deal of faith in the wiki process these days -- more than I did when I first heard of it! ^_^
To make the argument that usernames are in some way different is the same as saying that they are special -- in what way are they special? Do they need to be protected? Are they under some different right, or sphere, where the rules that govern other Wikipedia aspects are separate? This argument works both ways-- you can say "why treat usernames so differently" if they are not "special".
The answer is obvious-- they are different, because we cant simply "edit" them-- we cant click change this username and presto-- it be wikified. Its among the few aspects of Wiki that are beyong wiki means, and yet are system-level in nature. Choosing a name is a system command, and not a wiki edit.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Stevertigo wrote:
The answer is obvious-- they are different, because we cant simply "edit" them-- we cant click change this username and presto-- it be wikified. Its among the few aspects of Wiki that are beyong wiki means, and yet are system-level in nature. Choosing a name is a system command, and not a wiki edit.
Not a wiki edit! Aha! therfore not subject to POV rules. :-)
At 12:23 AM 10/14/2003, Ray wrote:
Stevertigo wrote:
The answer is obvious-- they are different, because we cant simply "edit" them-- we cant click change this username and presto-- it be wikified. Its among the few aspects of Wiki that are beyong wiki means, and yet are system-level in nature. Choosing a name is a system command, and not a wiki edit.
Not a wiki edit! Aha! therfore not subject to POV rules. :-)
But, since the Wiki software keeps track of every edit by username, a username becomes a part of EVERY edit that the user makes. Therefore, while CHOOSING the name isn't a wiki edit, every subsequent edit has the name imbedded. This makes it subject to NPOV rules... assuming that the person makes at least one edit ever... and if they don't, what's the point in arguing?
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
At 12:23 AM 10/14/2003, Ray wrote:
Stevertigo wrote:
The answer is obvious-- they are different, because we cant simply "edit" them-- we cant click change this username and presto-- it be wikified. Its among the few aspects of Wiki that are beyong wiki means, and yet are system-level in nature. Choosing a name is a system command, and not a wiki edit.
Not a wiki edit! Aha! therfore not subject to POV rules. :-)
But, since the Wiki software keeps track of every edit by username, a username becomes a part of EVERY edit that the user makes. Therefore, while CHOOSING the name isn't a wiki edit, every subsequent edit has the name imbedded. This makes it subject to NPOV rules... assuming that the person makes at least one edit ever... and if they don't, what's the point in arguing?
No, it is a part of the edit record, but not of the edit itself. Simply calling up an article does not reveal who any of the contributors are. One needs to look up the history to know that.
Ec
Stevertigo wrote:
system command, and not a wiki edit.
Ray claimed:
Not a wiki edit! Aha! therfore not subject to POV
rules. :-)
Dante Alighieri pounced:
But, since the Wiki software keeps track of every edit by username, a username becomes a part of
EVERY edit that the user makes. Therefore, while
CHOOSING the name isn't a wiki edit, every subsequent edit has the name imbedded. This makes it subject to NPOV rules... assuming that the person makes at least one edit ever... and if they don't, what's the point in arguing?
Dante is right. This whole thread is silly. To say that wikipedians shouldnt have a means to enforce NPOV in usernames is essentially saying "lets ask Jimbo to handle each and every case."
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Stevertigo wrote:
Dante is right. This whole thread is silly. To say that wikipedians shouldnt have a means to enforce NPOV in usernames is essentially saying "lets ask Jimbo to handle each and every case."
Well, I guess that I must fall under SV's hypothesis here. So let me just note that I emphatically deny the conclusion. What a silly thing that would be, indeed!
-- Toby
Dante Alighieri wrote:
But, since the Wiki software keeps track of every edit by username, a username becomes a part of EVERY edit that the user makes. Therefore, while CHOOSING the name isn't a wiki edit, every subsequent edit has the name imbedded. This makes it subject to NPOV rules... assuming that the person makes at least one edit ever... and if they don't, what's the point in arguing?
I don't know why we're trying to draw some connection between making a wiki edit and the application of NPOV; a special command (like creating the username in the first place) is not exempt from NPOV simply because it's not an ordinary edit. These are entirely separate matters.
NPOV was developed for the content of encyclopaedia articles. It extends easily to other reference material (like Wikibooks). I don't believe that it adapts well to personal statements (posts on talk pages, user pages, edit summaries, usernames), and I would oppose any attempt to apply it directly to them. To do so would be a category error.
This is yet separate from /other/ reasons to monitor those things, such as etiquette, avoiding offence to other users, and the like.
-- Toby
Stevertigo wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
That's neither here nor there when it comes to personal usernames. I have a great deal of faith in the wiki process these days -- more than I did when I first heard of it! ^_^
To make the argument that usernames are in some way different is the same as saying that they are special -- in what way are they special? Do they need to be protected? Are they under some different right, or sphere, where the rules that govern other Wikipedia aspects are separate? This argument works both ways-- you can say "why treat usernames so differently" if they are not "special".
The answer is obvious-- they are different, because we cant simply "edit" them-- we cant click change this username and presto-- it be wikified. Its among the few aspects of Wiki that are beyong wiki means, and yet are system-level in nature. Choosing a name is a system command, and not a wiki edit.
So why did you bring up Wikifaith in the first place?
I'm further from understanding your position than I've ever been.
-- Toby
Stevertigo wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Yes, I am absolutely arguing against that policy. A more detailed case, from principle, is in my most recent post, which is a lengthy reply to a post from mav.
The best policies are simple. Where subjective concerns are dealt with, we need consensus. There is no way around it--these situations will arise, and there will need to be decisions made. Either there will be a community consensus, on what that decision will be, or there will be a Jimbo consensus. This is the choice.
There is another choice (although it might be included in the above). The community could decide to try to avoid interfering in some things, concentrating on writing articles (and to a lesser extent policy) but ignoring random POV accumulations around individual users. For the most part, the community does this -- such as on user pages.
Whether this decision comes through community consensus, or is imposed by Jimbo, I don't really care. ^_^
According to that article, Wikifaith is faith in the wiki process.
Its faith in people. Not the process.
Hey, I can only read what's on the web page that you linked to! That says "the wiki model of web development". But OK, I have faith in people too.
Wikifaith, as I define it is simply an understanding that "Wiki works" because "people work"-- Wiki is a name for a tool that represents a technological extension of the human spirits of community and collegiality.
Ah, but this is more than simply faith in people! Just because somebody has faith in people doesn't mean that they'll believe that Wiki works. I'm sure that there's a strong correlation here -- in fact, I'd be surprised if /anybody/ had faith in wiki yet had no faith in people -- but it doesn't follow. So there is something more to the principle, something which you and I both think is correct, but which others might not.
I also have faith that Wikipedia will generally do the right thing;
I have no faith in the thing called "Wikipedia" whatsoever. My faith is reserved for the people who happen to be on it. Nes pa?
I have faith in people, including Wikipedians; but many human institutions fail despite good people in them. So I /additionally/ have faith that Wikipedia also works.
I'm not sure if it's my faith or yours that is the larger. Do I have more faith, since I believe in Wikipedia as well as Wikipedians? Or do you have more faith, since (according to this hypothesis) you believe that instiutions made up of good people must work? If the latter, then I have less faith, because I disagree! (and cite every state in human history as my evidence ^_^).
To the extent that money measures faith,
Your donation of "money" (work hours quantified, right) is a good thing. Are you going to compare your donation in anyway to those of others?
No, my money is /not/ work hours quantified. Indeed, work hours are measured in hours, not dollars. But even work itself hardly corresponds well to dollars. (For example, I wouldn't work more on Wikipedia for money.)
And I don't see any use in comparing my donation to others'. In terms of total amounts, our levels of financial freedom are bound to be quite different -- and Jimbo has us all beat. Even if we could translate the donations into work (or work hours), these don't have the same value to each person either (and they'd have to be balanced by other work on Wikipedia). Finally, even if a meaningful comparison did exist, what would be the point?
OTOH, comparing this donation to my past donations is useful, in that money means about the same to me when I donate to Wikimedia as when I donate to various other groups. Not entirely meaningful, since you also have to figure in the various groups' financial needs. But there are other groups that, like Wikimedia, don't need my donation but could still put it to good use (a middle ground between groups that are very wealthy and groups that are desperate for funds). So, in the end, I think that it says /something/ that my donation to Wikimedia was much larger.
Not a huge point in the end, however; treat my multiparagraph reply as theoretical in nature, rambling about the nature of money more than anything else.
See, if that ever /really/ went through, I would leave. Hell, if it were ever a serious issue, I'd lose a lot of faith (in Wikipedia, but not much in the wiki process in general).
Youre an addict, Toby. ;-) Besides-- you make my point-- nothing would come of it. I can whip up some annoying fuss trying to get some support for it, and it will be over like *snap* I'll *bet that the namechange page would even be deleted (as inflammatory vandalism )-- and you and I both know that there needs be "consensus" for such a thing to stand. ;-)
Actually, if the content was interesting, I might keep it. But anyway, if your point is that nothing would come of it ... well, the conclusion I draw is that Wikipedia isn't as bad as it could be. Hell, I conceded that a long time ago! -- that's what all that talk about my faith in Wikipedia is about. But it doesn't at all follow that a namechange proposal that something /does/ come from is a good idea, right? That's the debate here.
I suspect that the world would be a better place if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules.
Idea: Keep the discussion limited to the context at hand, eh?
Hrm? What does that mean?
If you mean that you feel that I'm drifting off topic, so that you don't want to respond to rest of my post, then that's fine with me. (But you do respond! ^_^)
If people couldn't do anything to change Drolsi's old name /other/ than to talk to him on a personal basis and try to convince him that it would be a good idea, then that might have been what people tried in the first place!
This is idealistic-- measures to enforce that which is best for wikipedia are in place now-- Jim can pull even pull the plug if its going to be good for wiki.
It's worse than idealistic; it's counterfactual! But still interesting to me to think what might happen; counterfactuals often give insight into reality.
Lets keep perspective here. This is just a name.
Isn't that the argument /against/ forcing the change? ^_^
"There is no G-d-given right to edit Wikipedia" remember. (Tarquin, I think)
KQ, I think. Also not particularly relevant. While nobody has /any/ right to edit Wikipedia, that doesn't mean that any rules that we impose on editors are a /good idea/.
If your critique is of my approach-- I will acknowledge that I could have been more cordial to JiL.
I wasn't so much criticising what /you did/ as criticising what /Drolsi saw done/ -- although you started that, I suppose. Drolsi may yet prove to be an old troll trying to rile us up; I'm more concerned about the next Drolsi, who may be sincere.
Instituting banning and page protection -- even if necessary, in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad thing too, like anything that interferes with the wiki process (in which I have so much faith).
So, under it all-- you oppose banning itself? Then we need a namechange for this thread. Should we take the step of voting on it?
Under it all, the very existence of bans and blocks is an evil. Given the attraction of vandals, it seems to be a necessary evil. But it is unwiki -- that is a fact (whereas as "evil" is opinion) -- and we should recognise that, to help us make wise decisions about it. The same goes for page deletion and anything done through an SQL query, including changing usernames. They're edits that ordinary users cannot make, hence unwiki -- necessary though they may be.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Whether this decision comes through community consensus, or is imposed by Jimbo, I don't really
care. ^_^
Such is the perennial failing of attempt to develop a civil and self-reliant society. ;-)
~S~
==message truncated==
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Toby Bartels wrote:
Stevertigo wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Yeah, /I/ know what it means? Do you???
If you dont think "Jesus is Lord!" (dont forget the exclamation !) isnt inflamatory-- I dont know what to tell you.
Eh, that post was a bit over the top, and not very sensible. I think that I meant that it seemed rather circular to claim that a name must be changed because it's "inflammatory" ("of a nature to rouse passion, anger, or animosity" -- OED) when the only passion, anger, and animosity that it raised was in the business of changing names in the first place. There was no mention (there was eventually, but late in the process) of any emotions being aroused by the name /other/ than the desire to ban it on the grounds that it was "inflammatory".
I confess that I reacted to the name facetiously and jokingly, but I would still defend JiL's right to the name he wants. Toby's right, there was no problem until those who wanted a changed name started one.
Youre usually pretty straightforward and practical Toby--in this case you seem to be making a strange quasi-principled argument against a policy -- let me repeat it-- 1. Wikipedians can vote to change a username. 2. There are no standards, save the will of the community.
Yes, I am absolutely arguing against that policy. A more detailed case, from principle, is in my most recent post, which is a lengthy reply to a post from mav.
1. A vote to limit an individual's rights is tyrannous. 2. Please don't confuse the will of the community with the will of a small clique.
The second one require some wikitrust or better yet: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikifaith
According to that article, Wikifaith is faith in the wiki process. That's neither here nor there when it comes to personal usernames. I have a great deal of faith in the wiki process these days -- more than I did when I first heard of it! ^_^
I also have faith that Wikipedia will generally do the right thing; perhaps that is what you meant.
I have more faith in the wiki process than in some of its users.
So, maybe LD's experiment was useful after all-- but only to prove my original point (which isnt really "my" point alone, is it-- 19 to 5 vote ) that "WP reserves the right to rename you. " ie: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toby_Bartels/namechange
The vote was a farce. That kind of thing tends to attract mostly those who are right there clicking their knitting needles at the foot of the guillotine. Most would not participate in the vote because it's a waste of time away from what they are here to do, assuming of course that they knew about it in the first place.. If the turnout of voters for the logo vote (over 170 IIRC) is to be any kind of standard, 24 is about 14% of that. The logo vote was extensively advertised; what advertising was done for this one?
I know the danger of making absolute statements. But I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible situation where such a name change would be remotely a good idea -- I mean for the community to attempt to impose on me by force.
Yes, there are exceptions. Some months back there was the Anthere/Anthère/Anthére.... issue where somebody introduced a name that differed from that of a respected user by only an accent. As it was the person was trying to make some point and had no intention of continuing to use the confusing name, otherwise this could be a situation where the issue might be forced.
I suspect that the world would be a better place if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules.
Laws depend on enforcement to be effective. Regrettably speeding laws work only because there's a cop there with a radar gun. The number who will avoid speeding out of well considered altruism is likely small. Technology is a double-edged sword.
If people couldn't do anything to change Drolsi's old name /other/ than to talk to him on a personal basis and try to convince him that it would be a good idea, then that might have been what people tried in the first place!
Yes, and that reflection goes farther than Wikipedia. We've lost the skill of discussing our problems with our neighbors; we're afraid of the reaction that we might get from a direct approach. It's much easier to surprise him with a visit from the police or a subpoena from small claims court.
This suspicion, like the rambling at the end of my reply to mav, is also much broader than just Wikipedia -- and as in that case, Wikipedia is much closer to my ideal than most insitutions are..
But still an ideal. I often wonder about the sort of vision that sustains the participation of some Wikipedians.
This is even -- dare I say it? -- a big part of Wikifaith to me. In wikis, people /can't/ stop others from editing their text; and this forces collaboration instead of single authorship.
It's interesting that the matter of Wikifaith should come up in the context of one user's faith-bound name.
Instituting banning and page protection -- even if necessary, in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad thing too, like anything that interferes with the wiki process (in which I have so much faith).
Yes, they're analogous to imprisonment, exile and other forms of state perpetrated violence. I often wonder about those people who cry loudest about "bringing a criminal to justice"; justice is often farthest from their mind.
Ec
From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
Yes, and that reflection goes farther than Wikipedia. We've lost the skill of discussing our problems with our neighbors; we're afraid of the reaction that we might get from a direct approach. It's much easier to surprise him with a visit from the police or a subpoena from small claims court.
But then they quickly learn that going to court is rarely a quick fix, there are a million and one rules, the police often refused to intervene in civil disputes and even if they get a judgment against their neighbor it may be difficult to enforce it. If they are intelligent (and know a lawyer who is not just out to create disputes and billable hours) they find out quickly that it is much more effective (and cost efficient) to find a resolution mechanism that can help deal with the problems and minimizes animosity in the process.
Quite frankly I think most serious people do try to discuss their problems and do try and find an amicable approach before turning to some "official power" this is what was behind my points about mediation, it is not some "appeal to officiated power" it is a sincere attempt (without legal procedure) to resolve differences, not creating all kinds of rules, roles and rhetoric. It does not need another structure as User:Mediator was suggesting. It needs people who can listen and are listening to all the sides of a dispute and who wish to try to help those on different sides of the issues to better appreciate a different point of view and find what is good and reasonable in the differing perspectives. Mediation is not an institution it is a creative process in which people particulate if they have the willingness to do so. A mediator should be impartial and should not take sides or state to people that they "need" mediation because they appear to have violated some norm.
Those who run to court quickly learn that judges and the police and prosecutors do not want to deal with most of the disputes that have no real legal basis but are based upon personality differences. That is one reason those TV court shows so popular, you see how ridiculous people can be. Reasonable people usually resolve their differences, the rules are only there for the hard cases or for those who interpret events through some idiosyncratic theory.
Some of this talk about "rights" should be tempered with the recognition that what is being discussed may be a "privilege" or an "obligation" that has been violated. The aphorism we often hear from HR professors is: "Freedom of the press is freedom to own the press" not freedom to tell the owners of the press what to do. Anyone has the right to start their own press, their own wiki or even their own encyclopedia, not to impose their ideas or opinions on others, but to put it out there on their own into the "marketplace of ideas". It is perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to have limits on all sorts of kinds of behaviours.
Alex756
Alex756 wrote in part:
Eclecticology wrote:
Yes, and that reflection goes farther than Wikipedia. We've lost the skill of discussing our problems with our neighbors; we're afraid of the reaction that we might get from a direct approach. It's much easier to surprise him with a visit from the police or a subpoena from small claims court.
But then they quickly learn that going to court is rarely a quick fix, there are a million and one rules, the police often refused to intervene in civil disputes and even if they get a judgment against their neighbor it may be difficult to enforce it. If they are intelligent (and know a lawyer who is not just out to create disputes and billable hours) they find out quickly that it is much more effective (and cost efficient) to find a resolution mechanism that can help deal with the problems and minimizes animosity in the process.
This is not surprising. I agree with Ec that «Call the authorities!» can be seductive, without disagreeing with you that it can also be ineffective.
Quite frankly I think most serious people do try to discuss their problems and do try and find an amicable approach before turning to some "official power" this is what was behind my points about mediation, it is not some "appeal to officiated power" it is a sincere attempt (without legal procedure) to resolve differences, not creating all kinds of rules, roles and rhetoric.
Right; the difference between mediation (people talking together) and arbitration (an authority imposing a difference) is huge!
Some of this talk about "rights" should be tempered with the recognition that what is being discussed may be a "privilege" or an "obligation" that has been violated. The aphorism we often hear from HR professors is: "Freedom of the press is freedom to own the press" not freedom to tell the owners of the press what to do. Anyone has the right to start their own press, their own wiki or even their own encyclopedia, not to impose their ideas or opinions on others, but to put it out there on their own into the "marketplace of ideas". It is perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to have limits on all sorts of kinds of behaviours.
Wikipedia can have any limits on behaviour here whatsoever, in the sense that it would not interfere with societal "rights". Whether such limits are a good idea is, of course, another matter; sometimes they will be, and sometimes they won't be.
-- Toby
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Toby's right, there was no problem until those who wanted a changed name started one.
This is like saying "the Nazis werent a problem until England and Russia declared war on them." There- I invoked Godwin's Law.
- A vote to limit an individual's rights is
tyrannous.
I reserve the right to kill this thread.
- Please don't confuse the will of the community
with the will of a small clique.
Its an open vote, on an open thing-- a username. For each situation either a consensus be the rule or a Jimbo dictate be the rule-- Im sure JW has better things to do.
I have more faith in the wiki process than in some of its users.
"*My wikifaith is stronger than *yours" -- no its not about that-- Wikifaith is about understanding that if you whether you think your fellow humans are a glass half-empty or half-full-- this sentiment will show up in how you deal with things on wiki. Wiki is just a medium for interaction-- its not a destination.
The vote was a farce.
No, it wasnt. Sorry. Youre wrong. Wrong, I say.
Yes, there are exceptions.
Um, yeah. Thats the point. Do we treat people consistently or "exception"ally.
Yes, and that reflection goes farther than Wikipedia. We've lost the skill of discussing our problems with our neighbors; we're afraid of the reaction that we might get from a direct approach.
"You've lost... that lovin' feelin'... Who-oh, that lo-vin feelin.' You've lost thAT LO-VIN FEE-LIN-- NOW ITS GONE, Gone, gone... Wo-o-o-o..."
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Stevertigo wrote:
Eclecticology wrote:
Toby's right, there was no problem until those who wanted a changed name started one.
This is like saying "the Nazis werent a problem until England and Russia declared war on them." There- I invoked Godwin's Law.
So you concede defeat? Very well, I accept.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
So you concede defeat? Very well, I accept.
I will admit losing a pointless argument due to fatigue and boredom, if you admit that you were just trolling in the first place. ^_^
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Stevertigo wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
So you concede defeat? Very well, I accept.
I will admit losing a pointless argument due to fatigue and boredom, if you admit that you were just trolling in the first place. ^_^
Well ... in some sense, I'm always trolling when I argue with you. Because how does that get us anywhere ^_^? (Although I'm not seeking a /reaction/ from you, so I believe that it technically doesn't qualify.)
However, the broad statements of principle -- nature of freedom, what Wikipedia has a right to do versus what is a good idea, the gap between individual responsibility and enforced rules -- I stand by them.
And nothing that I wrote in response to mav was trolling; I would never troll mav.
-- Toby
And Hitler had no problem until people decided he didn't have the right to rule the world.
Besides, what you're saying isn't true. He came in making POV edits in the homosexuality articles and was willing to be cofrontational from the first. I have a feeling he's a previous user with a different name.
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
there was no problem until those who wanted a changed name started one.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Eclecticology wrote:
[many things that pleased me greatly; I respond to a part]
Toby Bartels wrote:
I know the danger of making absolute statements. But I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible situation where such a name change would be remotely a good idea -- I mean for the community to attempt to impose on me by force.
Yes, there are exceptions. Some months back there was the Anthere/Anthère/Anthére.... issue where somebody introduced a name that differed from that of a respected user by only an accent. As it was the person was trying to make some point and had no intention of continuing to use the confusing name, otherwise this could be a situation where the issue might be forced.
I agree that this is a pretty clear case for forcing a name change (although in the end the impostor relented and nothing was forced). I still have a hard time thinking of a plausible situation where that would apply to /my/ username -- which was the topic in the bit that you replied to. But more generally, yes, these situations do exist.
I suspect that the world would be a better place if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules.
Laws depend on enforcement to be effective. Regrettably speeding laws work only because there's a cop there with a radar gun. The number who will avoid speeding out of well considered altruism is likely small. Technology is a double-edged sword.
Technology, yes; but the point here is, so are laws. If there were no cop with a radar gun, then we might have safer cars. There is a whole anarchist literature (some bad ideas, some good) on how to have safe streets (etc) without having cops with guns.
But still an ideal. I often wonder about the sort of vision that sustains the participation of some Wikipedians.
Ultimately, I write on Wikipedia because it's fun and interesting. Why I get involved in policy, must be some sort of idealism. I often drop out of that, actually; although usually real life plays a big role in those temporary disappearances (which less often extend to encyclopaedia articles as well).
-- Toby
Maveric149 wrote:
Changing a user name does not ban the user. Think of it as a dress code; the great majority of employers do not allow their employees to wear shirts expressing controversial opinions. Why? Because it is disruptive and creates divisiveness in the workplace.
No, it's because employers like to control their workers' lives in petty ways. I think that we may have found the root of the Wikipedia "consensus"'s recent authoritarian tendencies.
The employer says, "This is my business! I own it! You do what I say!" The long-time Wikipedian says, "This is our encyclopaedia! We own it! You do what we say!" (And given the "we", they pretend there's a consensus when there isn't one, but only a majority.)
LittleDan wrote:
and it's not like telling people "You have to believe in Jesus, otherwise you're going to go to hell".
Funny, I get told that often by people who wear "Jesus is Lord!" t-shirts.
So you're judging JiL by these other people? I would expect better of you, mav! (Or if you aren't, then what was the relevance?)
-- Toby