Message: 6 Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:51:07 +0100 From: "Tony Sidaway" < f.crdfa@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] We need to recognize that advocating is a basic right To: "English Wikipedia" < wikien-l@wikipedia.org> Message-ID: 605709b90605050451u54ffec61i46939c96b8f8a6e1@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 5/4/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On May 4, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 5/4/06, John Tex < johntexster@gmail.com> wrote:
This is "advocacy". Contacting people to recruit them to support you or to act according to beliefs you think they may already have should rightly be called "campaigning". This is a Good Thing.
You're on the wrong project, mate.
He's thinking about policy issues and expressing himself in the proper forum. He's being courteous. He may be wrong, but input on policy questions is welcome.
All of the above may be true, but he's still on the wrong project. This is a project for the production of an encyclopedia, not for political campaigning.
Hi Tony,
I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to leave the project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate." However, since you're known for your somewhat surly statements and lack of civility, I let it slide. Now that you've repeated your transgression, however, I feel compelled to respond.
I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I hope that my contributions log shows that I have helped to do that. If people disagree, then there are proper channels to go through if anyone thinks I shouldn't be here. I'd thank you to use one of them rather than to make your snide, off-wiki comments saying I'm in the wrong place.
In the meantime, building the encyclopedia requires decisions on policy, as well as daily decisions about how to apply policy to individual situations.
This requires discussion and sometimes debate. That is inherently a political process. Person A will inevitably be trying to convince person B and C that Person A is proposing the correct solution. Sometimes Person A will be successful in bringing B and C around. Sometimes the opposite will happen and A will change positions. Sometimes people will agree to disagree. Etc.
Fortunately, Wikipedia is not ruled by Tony Sidaway, so you don't get to make all the decisions yourself. As long as multiple people are contributing to decision-making, politics is a fact-of-life.
I welcome your continued presense on Wikipedia and I thank you for the myriad contributions you have made to date. I would thank you as well to extend me the same courtesy, even if you disagree with my position.
Sincerely, Johntex
On Fri, 5 May 2006 07:04:18 -0700, you wrote:
I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to leave the project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate." However, since you're known for your somewhat surly statements and lack of civility, I let it slide.
Really? I thought Tony was best-known for his outspoken support for policy and the fundamental purpose of the project against all conflicting influences. Silly of me.
He is right: the only two *rights* are to fork or to leave. If you require any other rights to be extended you are indeed quite likely in the wrong place.
Guy (JzG)
On May 5, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2006 07:04:18 -0700, you wrote:
I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to leave the project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate." However, since you're known for your somewhat surly statements and lack of civility, I let it slide.
Really? I thought Tony was best-known for his outspoken support for policy and the fundamental purpose of the project against all conflicting influences. Silly of me.
He is right: the only two *rights* are to fork or to leave. If you require any other rights to be extended you are indeed quite likely in the wrong place.
Guy (JzG)
All users are entitled to respect and to cooperation in participating productively in the project. These "rights" are not enforceable in any court, but are a part of our common culture. They are enforced.
Fred
On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:22:16 -0600, you wrote:
All users are entitled to respect and to cooperation in participating productively in the project. These "rights" are not enforceable in any court, but are a part of our common culture. They are enforced.
Yes, of course. But Tony's fundamental point was being ignored: there is no right to advocacy. I would have said that advocacy is the precise opposite of what Wikipedia is for.
Perhaps I need a nice cup of tea and a sit down.
Guy (JzG)
On May 5, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:22:16 -0600, you wrote:
All users are entitled to respect and to cooperation in participating productively in the project. These "rights" are not enforceable in any court, but are a part of our common culture. They are enforced.
Yes, of course. But Tony's fundamental point was being ignored: there is no right to advocacy. I would have said that advocacy is the precise opposite of what Wikipedia is for.
Perhaps I need a nice cup of tea and a sit down.
Guy (JzG)
There is a bit of talking by one another here. Reasoned polite advocacy of policy positions is welcomed. Tendentious biased editing (especially when you are working in a group) is not. However, there are numerous situations where which is occurring is not immediately clear. Often the touchstone is that the nasty behavior goes on and on and on and on and on and at some point you realize you are engaging in deliberate behavior calculated to subvert neutral point of view (or in some other way create some tendency which simply doesn't belong in a reference work.
Fred
On Fri, 5 May 2006 10:58:15 -0600, you wrote:
There is a bit of talking by one another here. Reasoned polite advocacy of policy positions is welcomed. Tendentious biased editing (especially when you are working in a group) is not. However, there are numerous situations where which is occurring is not immediately clear. Often the touchstone is that the nasty behavior goes on and on and on and on and on and at some point you realize you are engaging in deliberate behavior calculated to subvert neutral point of view (or in some other way create some tendency which simply doesn't belong in a reference work.
Yes, I suspect we are in violent agreement. It probably comes down to how one understands advocacy: I understand it as a point of view forcefully put, whereas on Wikipedia I rather prefer a case simply stated and consensus sought. But there is more than one shade of the colour advocado.
Guy (JzG)
I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to leave the project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate." However, since you're known for your somewhat surly statements and lack of civility, I let it slide.
Really? I thought Tony was best-known for his outspoken support for policy and the fundamental purpose of the project against all conflicting influences.
Sure. But he can come off as being very surly and rude while he's about it.
He is right: the only two *rights* are to fork or to leave. If you require any other rights to be extended you are indeed quite likely in the wrong place.
For what it's worth, this remark looks equally surly and rude. I haven't followed the whole thread, but I saw Johntex's comments about the inevitability of "politics" as being eminently reasonable. He wasn't demanding any rights; he was pointing out a fact.
On Fri, 05 May 2006 10:22:45 -0400, you wrote:
Really? I thought Tony was best-known for his outspoken support for policy and the fundamental purpose of the project against all conflicting influences.
Sure. But he can come off as being very surly and rude while he's about it.
That is a true text, Brother.
Guy (JzG)
Well said.
Fred
On May 5, 2006, at 8:04 AM, John Tex wrote:
Hi Tony,
I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to leave the project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate." However, since you're known for your somewhat surly statements and lack of civility, I let it slide. Now that you've repeated your transgression, however, I feel compelled to respond.
I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I hope that my contributions log shows that I have helped to do that. If people disagree, then there are proper channels to go through if anyone thinks I shouldn't be here. I'd thank you to use one of them rather than to make your snide, off-wiki comments saying I'm in the wrong place.
In the meantime, building the encyclopedia requires decisions on policy, as well as daily decisions about how to apply policy to individual situations.
This requires discussion and sometimes debate. That is inherently a political process. Person A will inevitably be trying to convince person B and C that Person A is proposing the correct solution. Sometimes Person A will be successful in bringing B and C around. Sometimes the opposite will happen and A will change positions. Sometimes people will agree to disagree. Etc.
Fortunately, Wikipedia is not ruled by Tony Sidaway, so you don't get to make all the decisions yourself. As long as multiple people are contributing to decision-making, politics is a fact-of-life.
I welcome your continued presense on Wikipedia and I thank you for the myriad contributions you have made to date. I would thank you as well to extend me the same courtesy, even if you disagree with my position.
Sincerely, Johntex
On 5/5/06, John Tex johntexster@gmail.com wrote:
I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to leave the project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate."
I think you're being somewhat disingenuous by implying that I invited you to leave. Stay by all means, but don't describe advocacy as a right.
On May 5, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to leave the project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate."
I think you're being somewhat disingenuous by implying that I invited you to leave. Stay by all means, but don't describe advocacy as a right.
That's how I read it too, Tony. It's not an unreasonable reading.