On 10 Nov 2007 at 14:13:16 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Although I disagree with Guy as to how we should treat people who are willing to deal with them, it is posts like the above that make me have some sympathy with Guy's position. Spend too much time on WR and you'll forget what these people have tried to do to Wikipedia and the lives they've ruined in the process. And frankly, to compare good faith attempts to keep this project safe from the people who have explicitly stated they intend to harm to the Inquisition demonstrates a lack of perspective at many different levels starting with the minor detail that we're not killing anyone.
You take me to task for hyperbole (a valid point; is McCarthyism a sufficiently non-murderous analogy to use instead of the Inquisition?), but commit some of it yourself when you refer to lives being ruined. If anybody considers their life ruined because of anything that went on either on Wikipedia or an anti-Wikipedia forum, then they're taking all of this stuff way too seriously.
Quoting "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name:
On 10 Nov 2007 at 14:13:16 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Although I disagree with Guy as to how we should treat people who are willing to deal with them, it is posts like the above that make me have some sympathy with Guy's position. Spend too much time on WR and you'll forget what these people have tried to do to Wikipedia and the lives they've ruined in the process. And frankly, to compare good faith attempts to keep this project safe from the people who have explicitly stated they intend to harm to the Inquisition demonstrates a lack of perspective at many different levels starting with the minor detail that we're not killing anyone.
You take me to task for hyperbole (a valid point; is McCarthyism a sufficiently non-murderous analogy to use instead of the Inquisition?), but commit some of it yourself when you refer to lives being ruined. If anybody considers their life ruined because of anything that went on either on Wikipedia or an anti-Wikipedia forum, then they're taking all of this stuff way too seriously.
Bagley, Brandt, Amorrow and others have engaged in real life harassment that has ruined lives. I don't know if your ignorance of this matter is willful or not, but either way it does you and your position no credit.
On Nov 10, 2007 1:15 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
You take me to task for hyperbole (a valid point; is McCarthyism a sufficiently non-murderous analogy to use instead of the Inquisition?), but commit some of it yourself when you refer to lives being ruined. If anybody considers their life ruined because of anything that went on either on Wikipedia or an anti-Wikipedia forum, then they're taking all of this stuff way too seriously.
If this behavior did not extend beyond Wikipedia and anti-Wikipedia forums, it would be a lot less harmful than it is. Wikipedia Review participants have proven themselves quite willing to try and get people fired from their jobs, for instance, simply because the person was a Wikipedia admin - even in cases when they had no conflict with the person themselves.
The behavior of amorrow extends beyond even that, and the fact that WR tolerated him as long as they did (I'm not sure if he's presently banned from there or not) speaks volumes.
-Matt
On 10/11/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The behavior of amorrow extends beyond even that, and the fact that WR tolerated him as long as they did (I'm not sure if he's presently banned from there or not) speaks volumes.
He is banned and technically they tolerated him less long that we did.
On 10/11/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 1:15 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
You take me to task for hyperbole (a valid point; is McCarthyism a sufficiently non-murderous analogy to use instead of the Inquisition?), but commit some of it yourself when you refer to lives being ruined. If anybody considers their life ruined because of anything that went on either on Wikipedia or an anti-Wikipedia forum, then they're taking all of this stuff way too seriously.
If this behavior did not extend beyond Wikipedia and anti-Wikipedia forums, it would be a lot less harmful than it is. Wikipedia Review participants have proven themselves quite willing to try and get people fired from their jobs, for instance, simply because the person was a Wikipedia admin - even in cases when they had no conflict with the person themselves.
Indeed. Dan, don't be dense.
- d.
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:15:27 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
If anybody considers their life ruined because of anything that went on either on Wikipedia or an anti-Wikipedia forum, then they're taking all of this stuff way too seriously.
Do you really think that? Should we forward this opinion to those who we personally know have had their lives materially damaged by Bagley and co?
You might think that Wikipedia is just a website, but they sure as hell don't. Wikipedians have as a hobby trying to build an encyclopaedia. The banned users now running WR have as a hobby trying to abuse Wikipedia for their own ends or bring it down altogether. I happen to think that this difference in focus is highly relevant.
Guy (JzG)