bad sign, IMO. I no longer feel confident that "the system works."
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward that members that were up for election were involved in this and their involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting? The secrecy is what's most toxic. Maybe we should start applying Verifiability outside of just the encyclopedic content. ****** What's toxic here is how quickly some people fall into the same logical errors I fell prey to, unaware of the irony that they practice exactly the same faults they criticize.
Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-Durova
On 27/11/2007, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Alec:
bad sign, IMO. I no longer feel confident that "the system works." There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward that members that were up for election were involved in this and their involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting? The secrecy is what's most toxic. Maybe we should start applying Verifiability outside of just the encyclopedic content.
What's toxic here is how quickly some people fall into the same logical errors I fell prey to, unaware of the irony that they practice exactly the same faults they criticize. Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Indeed. Start with an assumption of bad faith and extrapolate from there, and you have Wikipedia Review.
Working definition of "cabal": group of people talking that the labeler isn't in.
- d.
On 27/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Working definition of "cabal": group of people talking that the labeler isn't in.
Perhaps.
Then again, when it is admitted that a "report" was circulated to "roughly two dozen trusted people" (http://tinyurl.com/2mxb3v for the diff), the inevitable first two questions are "by whom are they trusted?" and "trusted to do what?"
I really, really hope that none of the Arbitrators voting in the RFAr were on this secret mailing list. That would truly cause a collision between excrement and ventilator.
On 11/27/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What is it you think I'm claiming that you haven't already admitted?
If you think I'm saying you're a bad person or have nefarious intentions or some secret conspiracy (aside from the formerly secret conspiracy to protect wikipedia from trolls)-- you're wrong. I'm not suggesting you had some sort of ulterior motive in blocking !!-- I totally believe you legitimately believed he was a sleeper sock. I have nothing bad to say about you as a person.
As far as I know, all I'm alleging is what's already been admitted. The fact is-- the "secret evidence" and "secret lists" are very very controversial. Wikipedia has long been subjected to criticisms of "hivemindedness", "cliquishness" and "cabalness". Until a few days ago, the idea that there was a group of editors performing secret investigations, weighing secret evidence, and coordinating their opinions-- it was a joke. A crackpot conspiracy theory. Nobody really believed trusted Wikipedians would get together for organized "sleuthing", swapping "secret evidence" and reaching "secret verdicts" about who is to be blocked. Nobody seriously believed that would ever happen.
Except... it happened.
The secret mailing list is a huge blow.. a huge blow. It really was a betrayal of trust. The community genuinely believed these sorts of lists didn't really exist, they trusted the leadership to not engage practices like this.
And now that it's come out, you're danged right people are going to insist on knowing who was involved. Youv'e seen for yourself how seriously the community takes this issue-- and there's no laughing it off as the trollings of ED-lovers this time.
This siege-mentality militia is destroying the encyclopedia. It has caused more drama and more distraction than anything else in the history of the encyclopedia. Let's run down the list of how much the little "militia" has cost us in terms of time and effort and drama:
* The original MONGO case and the ED links purging * The BADSITES policy dispute * The NPA#EL policy dispute * The Attack Sites Arbcom case. * The Desysopping of MONGO and the whole arbcom case that led up to it * The purging of Making Lights * The purging of Michael Moore * The purging of Don Murphy * The dispute that tried to ban even the mere MENTION of ASM * The purging of Robert Black links * The purging of any questions, even good faith ones, involving the slashdot article on SV * MONGO's edit-warring NPA#EL into being policy * MONGO, JzG, and others' habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with them of working for WR or ED. * The banning of !! * The revelation of "secret evidence" and "secret mailings lists" * The RFC on you, and your resigning. * The Arbcom case that's still ongoing.
How long is this gonna go on? Your posse of overzealous defenders is doing more to disrupt the project and destroy user trust and faith than all the vandals in the world ever could. I know you're doing it out of the goodness of your heart, I know you're doing it out of a desire to be protective.....
But you're hurting the project, and ya'll need to stop. Go read the RFC if you don't believe me-- the consensus that the "militia" is hurting the project is there, and had the RFC continued, it would have just gotten more and more opinions that the siege mentality is the wrong direction for the project.
Alec