On 29 May 2007 at 10:55:54 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
There's no examples of why attack sites should not be linked. Suppose you're discussing a forum post from Wikipedia Review in some Wikipedia-relevant discussion. How can you reasonably do that without linking to it?
At least part of that site can be considered attack site (I have no idea if the Brandt's Hivemind page is still gone), but there's plenty of simple crititcs there whose posts are worth discussing. I don't see why we should ban an entire site just for part of its content.
Brandt's Hivemind is (or was) in Wikipedia Watch, not Wikipedia Review. Some people in this "BADSITES debate" seem to sometimes confuse the two sites (and it's hard to show them otherwise without committing the venal sin of linking to the sites).
On 5/29/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 29 May 2007 at 10:55:54 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
There's no examples of why attack sites should not be linked. Suppose you're discussing a forum post from Wikipedia Review in some Wikipedia-relevant discussion. How can you reasonably do that without linking to it?
At least part of that site can be considered attack site (I have no idea if the Brandt's Hivemind page is still gone), but there's plenty of simple crititcs there whose posts are worth discussing. I don't see why we should ban an entire site just for part of its content.
Brandt's Hivemind is (or was) in Wikipedia Watch, not Wikipedia Review. Some people in this "BADSITES debate" seem to sometimes confuse the two sites (and it's hard to show them otherwise without committing the venal sin of linking to the sites).
Exactly. I have yet to see a single example of a revelation of personal identity on Wikipedia Review, and I know that is certainly frowned upon by the authorities there. Just cause they don't like us is no reason to not be able to link to them.
However, I would not oppose a ban of sorts on linking to Brandt's site (outside of articlespace, of course.) ~~~~
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 5/29/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. I have yet to see a single example of a revelation of personal identity on Wikipedia Review, and I know that is certainly frowned upon by the authorities there.
That's an absurd statement. They're constantly trying to out Wikipedians.
On 5/29/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. I have yet to see a single example of a revelation of personal identity on Wikipedia Review, and I know that is certainly frowned upon by the authorities there.
That's an absurd statement. They're constantly trying to out Wikipedians.
Link? (privately if you'd prefer). Also, why not link to sections that do not contain outings of Wikiepdians? In addition (this is a bit omnibus) do we ban links to Stormfront, etc. (that attack non-whites a lot more viciously that WR ever has)? ~~~~
On 5/29/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Link? (privately if you'd prefer). Also, why not link to sections that do not contain outings of Wikiepdians? In addition (this is a bit omnibus) do we ban links to Stormfront, etc. (that attack non-whites a lot more viciously that WR ever has)? ~~~~
In addition to Stormfront in general being a hate site, I'm surprised that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic#External_links
Isn't mentioned, as Bryan from Palatine aka Dino et al also routinely try to attack/slam/out people there, or used to. No one has rushed to remove that.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On May 29, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Gabe Johnson wrote:
Exactly. I have yet to see a single example of a revelation of personal identity on Wikipedia Review, and I know that is certainly frowned upon by the authorities there. Just cause they don't like us is no reason to not be able to link to them.
We, ummm, are talking about the same Wikipedia Review where people conspired to call the police in my town to try to get me harassed because of fictional stories I was posting to a blog, right? And the one where people actively speculated about how they could get me kicked out of my PhD program?
I just want to make sure. I'd hate to get this magical happy site you mention here confused with the one that tried to ruin my life.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
We, ummm, are talking about the same Wikipedia Review where people conspired to call the police in my town to try to get me harassed because of fictional stories I was posting to a blog, right? And the one where people actively speculated about how they could get me kicked out of my PhD program?
I just want to make sure. I'd hate to get this magical happy site you mention here confused with the one that tried to ruin my life.
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil, drop the bullshit FUD. Nobody "conspired" to call the police in your town. Some unidentified person, who may or may not have been a Wikipedia Review user (but was almost certainly a reader) is to blame for that.
And, let's be honest here, there was a slightly legitimate concern. Don't try to paint yourself as a victim.
On 5/29/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Phil, drop the bullshit FUD. Nobody "conspired" to call the police in your town. Some unidentified person, who may or may not have been a Wikipedia Review user (but was almost certainly a reader) is to blame for that.
IIRC, people speculated that it might be possible to get Phil into difficulties with this - and then someone did it (probably amorrow, given his well known sociopathy, but not necessarily).
Perhaps not enough to rise to the level of criminal conspiracy, but still ...
And, let's be honest here, there was a slightly legitimate concern. Don't try to paint yourself as a victim.
Legitimate concern? BS. Wikipedia Review readers saw an opportunity to cause trouble for someone they loathed, and ran with it.
The obsession with certain individual Wikipedia editors is one of the most disturbing things about the site, frankly. Unfortunately, because of the widely-held feeling there that Wikipedia unjustly outs, publicises and discusses individuals who don't want the attention, there appears to be a belief that obsessive interest in the lives and personal details of Wikipedia users/admins they don't like is fair revenge.
-Matt
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On May 29, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Gabe Johnson wrote:
Exactly. I have yet to see a single example of a revelation of personal identity on Wikipedia Review, and I know that is certainly frowned upon by the authorities there. Just cause they don't like us is no reason to not be able to link to them.
We, ummm, are talking about the same Wikipedia Review where people conspired to call the police in my town to try to get me harassed because of fictional stories I was posting to a blog, right? And the one where people actively speculated about how they could get me kicked out of my PhD program?
I just want to make sure. I'd hate to get this magical happy site you mention here confused with the one that tried to ruin my life.
And here we have a fine example of the problem caused by refusing to link to pages on or say the name of sites where people do things we don't like. When I went and took a brief look at Wikipedia Review, what I saw was yet another internet forum, somewhat more negative in tone and with a higher proportion of kooks, but otherwise not very different than what I'd expect in the comments section of one of Nicholas Carr's columns about Wikipedia. Undermedicated people with an internet forum? Or gibbering demons with sinister plans to destroy Wikipedia? Beats me.
There's another example in Gracenotes' RFA. I saw someone concerned that he had posted on Wikipedia Review. And I saw another person suggesting we shouldn't even mention the name Wikipedia Review. Was Gracenotes' alleged post a reasonable attempt to reach out to and engage our critics, something I routinely encourage? Or was he leading a conspiracy to eat babies with grapefruit spoons? Did he post at there all? Who knows.
Pretty much any other time people make an accusation of nefarious behavior on Wikipedia, we investigate it to death, with links galore, so that any reasonable person can find the truth of things. We, as a community, are *amazing* at that. I think that commitment to collaborative, reasoned judgment is one of our deepest strengths, and one of the things that has allowed us to scale so massively.
So when eventually somebody tells me what the proposed policy is (despite repeated requests, nobody has yet), I still think we'll never come to lasting consensus on it because information needed to make good judgments is being actively suppressed.
William