Anyone who believes that the trolls will go away if not fed should take some time to review:
http://develop.consumerium.org
Among other features of the site are a number of articles that attempt to organize leftist POV authors and get them to edit at Wikipedia.
UninvitedCompany
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
Anyone who believes that the trolls will go away if not fed should take some time to review:
http://develop.consumerium.org
Among other features of the site are a number of articles that attempt to organize leftist POV authors and get them to edit at Wikipedia.
UninvitedCompany
Having scanned their RC, I think they're going to be preoccupied with their own problems more than attacking Wikipedia. For instance, 142.177 created some pages about some of our favorite people ("Auntie" Angela, Tim Starling, and Erik Moeller) summarizing their evil deeds (great reading, like watching Rashomon), then later somebody named Juxho blanked them! A beautiful example of people bringing their baggage with them wherever they go...
Stan
On Fri, 07 May 2004 14:30:37 -0700, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Having scanned their RC, I think they're going to be preoccupied with their own problems more than attacking Wikipedia. For instance, 142.177 created some pages about some of our favorite people ("Auntie" Angela, Tim Starling, and Erik Moeller) summarizing their evil deeds (great reading, like watching Rashomon), then later somebody named Juxho blanked them! A beautiful example of people bringing their baggage with them wherever they go...
Do the site owners know about this? Do you think this is just another friendly Recyclopedia which 142.177 is subverting to his own purpouses? How can we contact the owners and ask them whether they find this acceptable? =/
Why doesn't 142.177 just spring for his own wiki hosting already? =b
"Fennec Foxen" fennec@gmail.com wrote in message news:3406cd4e04050716174153651c@mail.gmail.com...
On Fri, 07 May 2004 14:30:37 -0700, Stan Shebs
shebs@apple.com wrote:
Having scanned their RC, I think they're going to be preoccupied with their own problems more than attacking Wikipedia. For instance, 142.177 created some pages about some of our favorite people ("Auntie" Angela, Tim Starling, and Erik Moeller) summarizing their evil deeds (great reading, like watching Rashomon), then later somebody named Juxho blanked them! A beautiful example of people bringing their baggage with them wherever they go...
Do the site owners know about this? Do you think this is just another friendly Recyclopedia which 142.177 is subverting to his own purpouses? How can we contact the owners and ask them whether they find this acceptable? =/
The site owner is Juxho. Stan Shebs noticed him blanking some things. I've suggested to Juxho before that he might want to get rid of 142, but he's happy to tolerate him, just deleting particularly objectionable material. 142 has been at consumerium for many months now.
142 is a professional wiki troll. He is active on many wikis. On some wikis he encounters resistance, like Wikinfo or Wikipedia, and on others, he is able to set up shop and write about his philosophy in detail, and edit the wiki's statements of policy and direction to include his own peculiar views.
Why doesn't 142.177 just spring for his own wiki hosting already? =b
He's been offered free hosting at least twice. But that's no fun. Unless he's stepping on someone's toes while he writes, there's no point in writing. Here's what he told me when I suggested moving off consumerium to a wiki made just for him:
--START QUOTE--
Absolutely not. If you attempt such a move, you will be undone. Also if you persist, defamed in ways that reach beyond wiki-space (fair game, as libel of named parties was begun on your "mailing list").
The Content Wiki and Opinion Wiki of Consumerium will have very severe governance problems. The Wikipedia problems are just a prototype or foreshadowing of these. So while it is normal to have no-compromise high-engagement faction-biased discourses like this one (why we would engage), that by no means implies compromise on any principle. Be VERY clear on this:
Many people would physically harm you without a bat of conscience for severely reducing the odds of Consumerium or equivalent services functioning as intended, or sabotaging it once "in play". Fair trade matters. (Developing world education also matters, which is why User:Angela is an anathema). That's just fact. You have no doubt seen anti-globalization and pro-fair-trade marches on TV, and some get hurt, and some throw bricks back.
Failing to comprehend and avoid Consumerium Governance problems will, in trolls' view, reduce the odds of success. Be absolutely clear: you are making real-world enemies here, Tim Starling. And many real-world enemies do in fact go so far as to kill to protect what they value. No amount of agreement between this typist and that typist will change that in our respective lifetimes. Insistence on technological means of arbitration only escalates the conflicts and makes them worse. "You" as defined by your typings, trollings and "blocks" are therefore not a person, but part of a problem. One we intend to address by any means necessary. Your use of technological power puts you morally in the wrong, by definition. Do not align your body with your tools. It's a fatal mistake, and one most people learn only when it's far too late, when they realize their tools cannot protect them from whatever trolls they sought to silence. You are not owed warnings - from here, it's next stop abyss. The next troll may be armed with something more than truth and typing.
Therefore, the faction proposal, to deal with those issues of political dispute where people violently disagree, and will do harm to each other if not channeled into due process that respects factionally defined terms, as such. Pursue it, or ignore it. It too is a technological stopgap. It will work well enough for Consumerium Governance, or m:Wikipedia Governance, but it will not solve all the world's problems. If you seek harmony, you are best to abandon physics, software, and the Internet, and be a better gardener.
The world tree is waiting...
-- END QUOTE --
-- Tim Starling
Regarding this text, quoted from Consumerium:
Failing to comprehend and avoid Consumerium Governance problems will, in trolls' view, reduce the odds of success. Be absolutely clear: you are making real-world enemies here, Tim Starling. And many real-world enemies do in fact go so far as to kill to protect what they value. No amount of agreement between this typist and that typist will change that in our respective lifetimes. Insistence on technological means of arbitration only escalates the conflicts and makes them worse. "You" as defined by your typings, trollings and "blocks" are therefore not a person, but part of a problem. One we intend to address by any means necessary. Your use of technological power puts you morally in the wrong, by definition. Do not align your body with your tools. It's a fatal mistake, and one most people learn only when it's far too late, when they realize their tools cannot protect them from whatever trolls they sought to silence. You are not owed warnings - from here, it's next stop abyss. The next troll may be armed with something more than truth and typing.
It is difficult for me to read this as anything other than a death threat. Pure bluster, perhaps, but I worry about this guy.
The elements here that I find most troubling --
1. The dehumanization -- that you are not a person.
2. The specific references to death and violence "fatal mistake" and "you are making real-world enemies here".
--Jimbo
http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/Driven_off_by_trolls
From: uninvited@nerstrand.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:16:02 -0700 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Consumerium
Anyone who believes that the trolls will go away if not fed should take some time to review:
http://develop.consumerium.org
Among other features of the site are a number of articles that attempt to organize leftist POV authors and get them to edit at Wikipedia.
UninvitedCompany _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This is kind of different to the way the term 'troll' has been used before isn't it? As far as I can see, this is an attempt by an advocacy group to get their point of view to dominate certain articles - my understanding was that we were using the term 'troll' to mean users who post to deliberately stir up controversy. This highlights the fine line between points of view we disagree with (and how to integrate them into articles while maintaining an NPOV) and users who have nothing to add except conflict. Mark
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/Driven_off_by_trolls
From: uninvited@nerstrand.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:16:02 -0700 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Consumerium
Anyone who believes that the trolls will go away
if not fed should take some
time to review:
http://develop.consumerium.org
Among other features of the site are a number of
articles that attempt to
organize leftist POV authors and get them to edit at Wikipedia.
UninvitedCompany _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:01:58 UTC, Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
As far as I can see, this is an attempt by an advocacy group to get their point of view to dominate certain articles - my understanding was that we were using the term 'troll' to mean users who post to deliberately stir up controversy.
[for its own sake. -- my addition]
We were; and that was the meaning when it was first used in newsgroups.
http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/Driven_off_by_trolls
In applying the term to Larry Flynt's disreputable political move (I take no stance on whether it was a _bad_ political move) is helping to take away the meaning of a useful word; cf. hacker.
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
Anyone who believes that the trolls will go away if not fed should take some time to review:
http://develop.consumerium.org
Among other features of the site are a number of articles that attempt to organize leftist POV authors and get them to edit at Wikipedia.
UninvitedCompany _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you all really believe that WP is dominated by the left? All I ever seem to see is US rightists and nationalists. If Wikipedia was dominated by the left it would be a much more pleasant place to edit.
Caroline
Caroline Ford wrote:
Do you all really believe that WP is dominated by the left? All I ever seem to see is US rightists and nationalists. If Wikipedia was dominated by the left it would be a much more pleasant place to edit.
I do not believe that Wikipedia is dominated by anyone, right or left.
I think you will agree, Caroline, that it would be extremely unfortunate if any large organization or group, left or right, religious or anti-religious, etc., decided to target Wikipedia with a deliberate agenda of changing it into propaganda.
So far we haven't seen that, and frankly I suspect that for any such movement to succeed would be nearly impossible, because we have such a large and diverse userbase mutually committed to fairness.
It's interesting that you think that leftists are "more pleasant" -- this has not been my experience. My experience is that ideologues of any kind are too often very tiresome to be around for very long.
--Jimbo
Caroline Ford wrote:
Do you all really believe that WP is dominated by the left? All I ever seem to see is US rightists and nationalists. If Wikipedia was dominated by the left it would be a much more pleasant place to edit.
Well, it's the old relativism problem. To a die-hard communist, Green Parties look like right-wingers, and to a die-hard libertarian, most countries' conservative parties look like left-wing socialists. I think this happens on Wikipedia a lot, to a lesser extent of course.
I think Wikipedia tends to tilt slightly tilted towards the left of center, and slightly towards an EU-centric viewpoint, vaguely along the lines of BBC News's tilt (though theirs is somewhat more pronounced). I find myself often being slightly on the conservative side of disagreements on Wikipedia, while in wider US society I'm generally pretty solidly left-of-center (I even like many of Noam Chomsky's books, which to many people makes me automatically so far to the left that I've fallen off the edge of the political spectrum). All things considered, I think the editorial tilt on Wikipedia is quite good, and on articles with a lot of hashing out opinions ends up at a reasonable compromise. For example, [[Israel]] neither reads like a pro-Israel nor an anti-Israel article, and does an (I think) fairly admirable job of presenting the issue.
Individual subsections differ quite a bit though, and some are thoroughly tilted in either direction. Sometimes it's not even a matter of facts so much as the viewpoints of the person writing it being transparent, which they shouldn't be. When one reads an article, one should not immediately be able to discern the ideology of the person who put it there, and with a lot of Wikipedia's articles, you can. Articles should sound like the person writing it does not care what your viewpoint on the issue is, while a lot of our articles sound like they're trying to pursuade you a particular viewpoint is the correct one. Of course, each side thinks they're presenting the facts "neutrally", and some people here are even pretty pretentious about how "neutral" their pretty obvious biases are (on all sides), which doesn't really help. I think in particular on issues where people have clear-cut opinions they ought to be cautious about claiming their viewpoints are the neutral ones---one can use perfectly accurate facts and still present them in a non-neutral way, so simply being factual does not make one neutral.
-Mark
I think Wikipedia tends to tilt slightly tilted towards the left of center, and slightly towards an EU-centric viewpoint, vaguely along the lines of BBC News's tilt (though theirs is somewhat more pronounced).
How fascinating! I tend to find wikipedia slanted slightly right-wing, with a wide spectrum of people to round it out. It's very interesting that we can get such different opinions of the same group of people.
moink
I think these different perceptions are a natural outgrowth of the wiki process. We all tend to notice biases that annoy us more than we notice biases that confirm our opinions. For highly political/ideological people (like me, for example) the problem may be even more severe -- people can become convinced that their own opinions are just simple ordinary fact, and anything which challenges their preconceptions must therefore be biased.
I am an ardent fan of the United States Second Amendment, though, and I have been meaning to mention that some of the articles in that general area exhibit a troubling pro-gun bias. As a rule, I try not to edit stuff like that, but ironically enough if I had to pick something to edit today, that's where I would personally start.
But even here, and I think this is the ultimate secret of wiki, I think that my desire to fix the pro-gun bias is actually an expression in part of political motives. Because I am fully convinced that my position is right, I think that the best form of persuasion is a totally neutral presentation of the facts. Pro-gun bias actually _damages_ the cause, because it will cause reasonable people to read the article and dismiss it as biased.
I think that's why this all ultimately works so well. Good natured people are happy to let the facts shine through, because if they do, then of course other people will draw the right conclusions. Bias is unnecessary and counterproductive.
--Jimbo
Theresa Robinson wrote:
I think Wikipedia tends to tilt slightly tilted towards the left of center, and slightly towards an EU-centric viewpoint, vaguely along the lines of BBC News's tilt (though theirs is somewhat more pronounced).
How fascinating! I tend to find wikipedia slanted slightly right-wing, with a wide spectrum of people to round it out. It's very interesting that we can get such different opinions of the same group of people.
moink _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 01:32, Theresa Robinson wrote:
I think Wikipedia tends to tilt slightly tilted towards the left of center, and slightly towards an EU-centric viewpoint, vaguely along the lines of BBC News's tilt (though theirs is somewhat more pronounced).
How fascinating! I tend to find wikipedia slanted slightly right-wing, with a wide spectrum of people to round it out. It's very interesting that we can get such different opinions of the same group of people.
Well, for myself, I consider Wikipedia bumpy rather than slanted. That is there are distinct lumps in the political landscape where a particular location seems to be more extrusively occupied than others. What we should strive for is to get enough of those lumps so we end up with a cobble-stone pavement in the end, without notable potholes.
In a philosophical mood;
Cimon Avaro
It seems that way. But as I review some of the articles regarding which I have made serious efforts I notice that although leftists win a few fights they don't really carry the day. And probably never can unless they can find some way to prevent editing by the public. One thing to keep in mind is that those of us who are sceptical about the practical realities of communism as we have lived with it during the last 80 years may be equally sceptical about George Bush (and his ilk).
Fred
From: Caroline Ford caroline@secretlondon.me.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 23:03:07 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Consumerium
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
Anyone who believes that the trolls will go away if not fed should take some time to review:
http://develop.consumerium.org
Among other features of the site are a number of articles that attempt to organize leftist POV authors and get them to edit at Wikipedia.
UninvitedCompany _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you all really believe that WP is dominated by the left? All I ever seem to see is US rightists and nationalists. If Wikipedia was dominated by the left it would be a much more pleasant place to edit.
Caroline
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
It seems that way. But as I review some of the articles regarding which I have made serious efforts I notice that although leftists win a few fights they don't really carry the day. And probably never can unless they can find some way to prevent editing by the public. One thing to keep in mind is that those of us who are sceptical about the practical realities of communism as we have lived with it during the last 80 years may be equally sceptical about George Bush (and his ilk).
There is more to the left than just "communism". That's one of those words that is sometimes used as a conversation stopper; that word has come to carry with it the connotative baggage of something that is evil beyond redemption. Many people who see value in the philosophy of communism are just as disgusted with the excesses of someone like Stalin. They deeply resent those rightists who manoeuvre them into an apparent defence of Stalin then use that as a straw man to discredit all the positive elements of their beliefs.
What's wrong with your view is that you are starting from the position that there is a fight in which one of the combatants must carry the day. What you say could be said equally well and equally accurately with terms for left and right interchanged. And that would be equally wrong.
Ec
Nope, What I mean by carrying the day is when a favorable spin is inserted and maintained, by means of reverts, by POV editors on the left.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 17:22:36 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Consumerium
What's wrong with your view is that you are starting from the position that there is a fight in which one of the combatants must carry the da
The burden of minimizing the significance of 100 million deaths falls on the left.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 00:48:25 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Consumerium
Fred Bauder wrote:
Nope, What I mean by carrying the day is when a favorable spin is inserted and maintained, by means of reverts, by POV editors on the left.
Fred
Ahhh! You mean just like POV editors of the right.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not ready to accept such a straw-man burden just to offset the right's obsession with maximizing it. But then the right is not innocent in these things either.
One thing that characterizes those of us who support NPOV is that we are willing to tale other points of view into account, and not engage in venomous rhetoric to impose an historical guilt on today's individuals just because their beliefs appear to have a superficial similarity to those held by the leaders of certain notorious regimes.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
The burden of minimizing the significance of 100 million deaths falls on the left.
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 00:48:25 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Consumerium
Fred Bauder wrote:
Nope, What I mean by carrying the day is when a favorable spin is inserted and maintained, by means of reverts, by POV editors on the left.
Fred
Ahhh! You mean just like POV editors of the right.
Ec
On Fri, 7 May 2004 22:03:07 UTC, Caroline Ford caroline@secretlondon.me.uk wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
Anyone who believes that the trolls will go away if not fed should take some time to review:
http://develop.consumerium.org
Among other features of the site are a number of articles that attempt to organize leftist POV authors and get them to edit at Wikipedia. ...
Do you all really believe that WP is dominated by the left? All I ever seem to see is US rightists and nationalists. If Wikipedia was dominated by the left it would be a much more pleasant place to edit.
Well, I don't believe it; but I also don't quite understand this thread. Uninvited's message didn't say that Wikipedia is dominated by leftists, or anything of the sort; it said that that website was trying to organize certain kinds of leftists to work on Wikipedia. Certain kinds, meaning (as far as I see in a quick look at their site) peaceful pro-nature people who want only health and joy and threatening people's lives, as Tim Starling showed us. (*) What does their _desire_ for Wikipedia to reflect the views certain kinds of leftist have to do with its _being_ that way, or with our thinking that it is?
(*) This is unfair, of course. It appears that some people there properly despise 142.)
Personal bias disclosure: I'm in favor of ecologically sound peace and joy, not unlike what their main page seems to claim. If they want to participate here, playing by the rules, I'll welcome them. If people with the opposite view do, I'll have to put up with them.
What others might see as left-wing or right-wing bias (or pro- or anti- US) I see as the result of its attracting lots of seriously unsound people to sound off. It goes with the territory. We each see the worst junk as being the junk on the Other Side, and get the impression that the O.S. is dominating. But perhaps (if you will allow me the liberty of quoting an American) error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.