Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
When YOU do not know what is being discussed you either read up on it, do some research, talk to people involved or keep out of it. Suggesting that there is no clarity about such issues is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes this situation worse because it leads to more procrastination. What is needed is clarity to what extend the WMF is aware of this situation and what involvement it can have, research is needed about the extend this type of behaviour DOES affect our project and impacts the NPOV of controversial subjects. This research is needed because it will prevent people from ignoring or belittling this issue.
Thanks, GerardM
---- Superbly expressed. Some respondents demonstrate a palpable lack of perspective regarding this serious issue.
Months ago I initiated a proposal to eliminate the word "wikistalking" because of exactly the problem that has manifested in this thread: it takes a serious crime and trivializes it, fostering confusion on a subject where victims already have a very difficult time making themselves heard and believed.
With the notable exception of Gerard and a few others, this conversation is occurring on an absurd level. It's as if David Shankbone had stepped forward to announce that his car had been stolen, and responses had confused real auto theft with the game "Grand Theft Auto."
-Durova
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
When YOU do not know what is being discussed you either read up on it, do some research, talk to people involved or keep out of it. Suggesting that there is no clarity about such issues is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes this situation worse because it leads to more procrastination. What is needed is clarity to what extend the WMF is aware of this situation and what involvement it can have, research is needed about the extend this type of behaviour DOES affect our project and impacts the NPOV of controversial subjects. This research is needed because it will prevent people from ignoring or belittling this issue.
Thanks, GerardM
Superbly expressed. Some respondents demonstrate a palpable lack of perspective regarding this serious issue.
Months ago I initiated a proposal to eliminate the word "wikistalking" because of exactly the problem that has manifested in this thread: it takes a serious crime and trivializes it, fostering confusion on a subject where victims already have a very difficult time making themselves heard and believed.
I agree with this. Sometimes a semantic shift can help. We can call the person who annoys people on-wiki a "tag-along troll" or whatever, and should reserve "stalking" for, well, actual stalking (and maybe always preface the term as "actual stalking" or "real-life stalking" so the meaning is plain to Wikimedians not familiar with this issue).
If more Wikimedians understand what is actually meant by this issue, hopefully that will be a step toward getting the issue addressed in a serious way.
Thanks, Pharos
Durova wrote:
Months ago I initiated a proposal to eliminate the word "wikistalking" because of exactly the problem that has manifested in this thread: it takes a serious crime and trivializes it, fostering confusion on a subject where victims already have a very difficult time making themselves heard and believed.
Once people have started using a word in a certain way you can't start pretending that they haven't. There is such a thing as cyberstalking, and I would tend to interpret wikistalking as a subset of that. Cyberstalking may very well have little if anything in common with "real" stalking, and use of that term may indeed result in trivialization. That doesn't change the fact that people use the word in the way that they do. That's why it's so important to begin by making sure we are all talking about the same thing.
Rules and laws will generally assume an ordinary dictionary definition in the absence of an onsite definition to override that. Where a word has multiple meanings a reader has the option to use whichever of those definitions suits him. This also applies where different dictionaries have different definitions, or usage has already gone beyond the dictionary. English dictionaries, in particular are more descriptive than prescriptive. Thus we sacrifice dictionary certainty for the sake of having a richer environment of word formation.
In cases of doubt one defines one's terms, and applies that definition strictly. That does wonders for maintaining focus in a subject.
With the notable exception of Gerard and a few others, this conversation is occurring on an absurd level.
Do we do any better by keeping it at an anecdotal level?
It's as if David Shankbone had stepped forward to announce that his car had been stolen, and responses had confused real auto theft with the game "Grand Theft Auto."
Who's David Shankbone? I don't see where anyone has said that any of these stalking claims were only a part of some video game.
Ec
Who David Shankbone is, and why he is relevant to this thread, is explained in the link found in the first post. He was a prolific member of the English Wikipedia and (I believe) English Wikinews, interviewing a number of high profile individuals and uploading multiple thousands of original photos. He's since left the projects, due in part to harassment that he describes in the linked article.
Nathan
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Who David Shankbone is, and why he is relevant to this thread, is explained in the link found in the first post. He was a prolific member of the English Wikipedia and (I believe) English Wikinews, interviewing a number of high profile individuals and uploading multiple thousands of original photos. He's since left the projects, due in part to harassment that he describes in the linked article.
David's case, which has been going on for quite a while, included very significant quantities of real-life harrassment and threats, much beyond the on-wiki incidents which were related.
It is one of the better examples of a problem clearly transcending Wikipedia's ability to mitigate the effects, though there was more happening on-wiki than we should have allowed to happen.
I appreciate that David is willing to speak out publicly about what happened to him. Perhaps this will help motivate change.
a first start is nowing that this things realy hapend. like a read that is on the en.wiki the case. much people wil say if you tel them that your a stalkt you are paranoïd. :(
But i don't see the difference between wikistalking en cyberstalking.
greatzz, huib
2008/6/10, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Who David Shankbone is, and why he is relevant to this thread, is explained in the link found in the first post. He was a prolific member of the English Wikipedia and (I believe) English Wikinews, interviewing a number of high profile individuals and uploading multiple thousands of original photos. He's since left the projects, due in part to harassment that he describes in the linked article.
David's case, which has been going on for quite a while, included very significant quantities of real-life harrassment and threats, much beyond the on-wiki incidents which were related.
It is one of the better examples of a problem clearly transcending Wikipedia's ability to mitigate the effects, though there was more happening on-wiki than we should have allowed to happen.
I appreciate that David is willing to speak out publicly about what happened to him. Perhaps this will help motivate change.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Huib Laurens wrote:
But i don't see the difference between wikistalking en cyberstalking.
I view it as a subset, i.e. wikistalking is cyberstalking on a site that happens to be a wiki.
But then what is cyberstalking? I've seen it applied to as little as paying attention to the edits a particular editor makes. Is it wikistalking to gather evidence for an arbitration request? The term is quite obviously useless if it is.
The only definition of cyberstalking that I think makes sense is a subset of stalking. In fact, the Wikipedia article currently uses that definition in the first sentence: "Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone."
Of course, 99 times out of 100 I bet someone who uses the term "wikistalking" isn't talking about actual stalking.
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself? The making of threats of bodily harm certainly is a crime. Stalking behavior would certainly make such a threat seem more real, but is stalking without an explicit threat a crime?
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Huib Laurens wrote:
But i don't see the difference between wikistalking en cyberstalking.
I view it as a subset, i.e. wikistalking is cyberstalking on a site that happens to be a wiki.
But then what is cyberstalking? I've seen it applied to as little as paying attention to the edits a particular editor makes. Is it wikistalking to gather evidence for an arbitration request? The term is quite obviously useless if it is.
The only definition of cyberstalking that I think makes sense is a subset of stalking. In fact, the Wikipedia article currently uses that definition in the first sentence: "Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone."
Of course, 99 times out of 100 I bet someone who uses the term "wikistalking" isn't talking about actual stalking.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself?
In most jurisdictions, yes. But as has been pointed out, enforcement can be very difficult.
The making of threats of bodily harm certainly is a crime. Stalking behavior would certainly make such a threat seem more real, but is stalking without an explicit threat a crime?
Sometimes, yes. I'm not going to go into details because I'm not an expert, but google "stalking laws".
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself?
In most jurisdictions, yes. But as has been pointed out, enforcement can be very difficult.
And let me add that the Internet is part of the real world.
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Dennis During wrote:
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself?
In most jurisdictions, yes. But as has been pointed out, enforcement can be very difficult.
And let me add that the Internet is part of the real world.
In a strict ultimate sense you are right of course,
Some behaviours would still cast doubt on that finding. :-)
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Dennis During wrote:
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself?
In most jurisdictions, yes. But as has been pointed out, enforcement can be very difficult.
And let me add that the Internet is part of the real world.
In a strict ultimate sense you are right of course,
Some behaviours would still cast doubt on that finding. :-)
I assume you're joking, but if someone is continuously harassing and/or threatening you, it doesn't matter whether it's by phone, by mail, by email, by instant message, by wiki talk page, by whatever. Stalking is stalking. Cyberstalking is stalking. Wikistalking is stalking. Anyone who persists in using one of the terms to mean less than that is harming society.
The Internet is part of the real world. Full stop.
Hoi, Absolutely !!
Denying that this is taking place endangers us, our continuity and our neutral point of view. There simply is no excuse for stalking. When things make a turn for the worst, the excuse "I did not know" is rather lame. It is for this reason that we have to address it sooner rather then to late. Thanks, Gerard
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Dennis During wrote:
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself?
In most jurisdictions, yes. But as has been pointed out, enforcement can be very difficult.
And let me add that the Internet is part of the real world.
In a strict ultimate sense you are right of course,
Some behaviours would still cast doubt on that finding. :-)
I assume you're joking, but if someone is continuously harassing and/or threatening you, it doesn't matter whether it's by phone, by mail, by email, by instant message, by wiki talk page, by whatever. Stalking is stalking. Cyberstalking is stalking. Wikistalking is stalking. Anyone who persists in using one of the terms to mean less than that is harming society.
The Internet is part of the real world. Full stop.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I do not think that the on-line analogs of real-world stalking and harassment are the same as their real-life counterparts, because false identity and physical separation make it less likely that threats be converted to physical consequences. Nor will most normal people. Nor will law enforcement or legislators. It is when physical harm is a real possibility that the phenomenon is taken seriously by others. If on-line stalking and harassment never spilled over into the real world, it would be considered by most a non problem.
We spend more time on-line than most of our fellow citizens. In particular, we have more familiarity with the unpleasantness of harassing behavior on-line than most of our fellow citizens. These two facts have some important consequences, I think. We care more about on-line harassment. And we also are likely to experience real-world stalking and harassment growing out of on-line interaction, to be aware of someone who has suffered from it, and to be able to imagine ourselves suffering from it.
We are vastly more likely to perceive on-line stalking and harassment as problems, both because it is very unpleasant to be involved in it even without any likely possibility of physical harm and because we can see how physical harm could result. In dealing with those unlike ourselves, we need to keep aware of how differently they see the world. They are likely to see us as engaged in petty squabbles in an arena (the on-line world) that attracts crazies and hysterics.
There are two breaches of good on-line behavior that might be taken seriously by those who do not spend much time on-line. The first is explicit threats of physical harm. The second is a breach of the separation of the on-line and the real-world. It is likely that only the co-incidence of the two will be taken seriously by law enforcement. Our own norms and behavior will have to carry the load with regards to breaches of just one or the other. WMF can have "strong" cross-project measures against those who make threats, supporting those filing complaints with law enforcement and breaching the anonymity that might protect the perpetrators. We ourselves have to do what we can to protect our own real-world privacy if we venture into dangerous on-line territory.
Local law enforcement has jurisdictional and cost problems in dealing with on-line stalking and harassment. National police forces have more capability, but also face problems when the behavior crosses international borders.
Lastly, when engaged in some of the more ferocious ideological battles on-line, it is unwise to imagine that one can be immune from stalking and harassment. At the very least one needs thick skin. In addition one needs either unbreachable security or a non-provocative or even conciliatory manner.
My 2 cents.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Absolutely !!
Denying that this is taking place endangers us, our continuity and our neutral point of view. There simply is no excuse for stalking. When things make a turn for the worst, the excuse "I did not know" is rather lame. It is for this reason that we have to address it sooner rather then to late. Thanks, Gerard
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Dennis During wrote:
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself?
In most jurisdictions, yes. But as has been pointed out, enforcement can be very difficult.
And let me add that the Internet is part of the real world.
In a strict ultimate sense you are right of course,
Some behaviours would still cast doubt on that finding. :-)
I assume you're joking, but if someone is continuously harassing and/or threatening you, it doesn't matter whether it's by phone, by mail, by email, by instant message, by wiki talk page, by whatever. Stalking is stalking. Cyberstalking is stalking. Wikistalking is stalking. Anyone who persists in using one of the terms to mean less than that is harming society.
The Internet is part of the real world. Full stop.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Denying that this is taking place endangers us, our continuity and our neutral point of view. There simply is no excuse for stalking. When things make a turn for the worst, the excuse "I did not know" is rather lame. It is for this reason that we have to address it sooner rather then to late.
Why are you suggesting the story that any of us is denying it?
If people don't know about it, that's more often a fact than an excuse. Often the real stalking is so buried in mounds of drama and distortion that it's almost impossible to extricate the serious situations.
Ec
"I didn't know" is an excellent tool for stalkers to play stupid with their sockpuppet accounts.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, Absolutely !!
Denying that this is taking place endangers us, our continuity and our neutral point of view. There simply is no excuse for stalking. When things make a turn for the worst, the excuse "I did not know" is rather lame. It is for this reason that we have to address it sooner rather then to late. Thanks, Gerard
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Dennis During wrote:
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself?
In most jurisdictions, yes. But as has been pointed out, enforcement can be very difficult.
And let me add that the Internet is part of the real world.
In a strict ultimate sense you are right of course,
Some behaviours would still cast doubt on that finding. :-)
I assume you're joking, but if someone is continuously harassing and/or threatening you, it doesn't matter whether it's by phone, by mail, by email, by instant message, by wiki talk page, by whatever. Stalking is stalking. Cyberstalking is stalking. Wikistalking is stalking. Anyone who persists in using one of the terms to mean less than that is harming society.
The Internet is part of the real world. Full stop.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:50 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
"I didn't know" is an excellent tool for stalkers to play stupid with their sockpuppet accounts.
Thank goodness you kept this thread alive! It was almost dead.
-- John Vandenberg
Hoi, For stalking we do not have a known policy in the WMF. To me it is obvious that there *is *a need for a protocol that deals with stalking. For your information, there have been situations in the past where actual stalking was determined to exist by law enforcement agencies and this did result to convictions.
When a Wikipedian finds him or herself in a situation where he or she is stalked in a way as defined in their jurisdiction, they should indeed go to the police and report their situation. We have learned in the past that the police is not eager to deal with these situations and it is not unlikely that they try to fob you off. To ensure the attention of the police, it helps when you mention that the WMF is this organisation that represents one of the top ten websites of the world, that the WMF will cooperate with the police to protect their volunteers.
Going to the police is not a trivial matter, please consider your options before you take this step. You may want to get some advise first ...
FYI On facebook there is a group dedicated to this subject ... http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=17363516333
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:06 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:50 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
"I didn't know" is an excellent tool for stalkers to play stupid with
their
sockpuppet accounts.
Thank goodness you kept this thread alive! It was almost dead.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
And let me add that the Internet is part of the real world
In a strict ultimate sense you are right of course,
Some behaviours would still cast doubt on that finding. :-)
The Internet is part of the real world. Full stop.
Lighten up! Sometimes it's very unreal. :-)
Ec
...on the other hand, there is a great difference between monitoring somebody's edits on Wikipedia and surveiling them in real life. Both of these have been called "stalking" by their victims, but I would say that while the first one could be part of a stalker's behavior, it isn't stalking by itself, while the latter very well could be.
Mark
On 11/06/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Dennis During wrote:
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself?
In most jurisdictions, yes. But as has been pointed out, enforcement can be very difficult.
And let me add that the Internet is part of the real world.
In a strict ultimate sense you are right of course,
Some behaviours would still cast doubt on that finding. :-)
I assume you're joking, but if someone is continuously harassing and/or threatening you, it doesn't matter whether it's by phone, by mail, by email, by instant message, by wiki talk page, by whatever. Stalking is stalking. Cyberstalking is stalking. Wikistalking is stalking. Anyone who persists in using one of the terms to mean less than that is harming society.
The Internet is part of the real world. Full stop.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I assume you're joking, but if someone is continuously harassing and/or threatening you, it doesn't matter whether it's by phone, by mail, by email, by instant message, by wiki talk page, by whatever. Stalking is stalking. Cyberstalking is stalking. Wikistalking is stalking. Anyone who persists in using one of the terms to mean less than that is harming society.
The Internet is part of the real world. Full stop.
...on the other hand, there is a great difference between monitoring somebody's edits on Wikipedia and surveiling them in real life. Both of these have been called "stalking" by their victims, but I would say that while the first one could be part of a stalker's behavior, it isn't stalking by itself, while the latter very well could be.
Agreed. I think some people misunderstood my point in the above statement. I was being prescriptive about the use of the terms "cyberstalking" and "wikistalking". I was most definitely *not* suggesting that all or even most things people call wikistalking are real life bona fide stalking.
Monitoring somebody's edits on Wikipedia is fairly obviously not stalking by any rational definition of the term, because it serves a legitimate purpose. I'd therefore say that *by definition* it, in itself, is neither cyberstalking nor wikistalking either, and that anyone who uses the term "wikistalking" to describe such a thing is harming the project and its community.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Is stalking in the real world a crime in itself? The making of threats of bodily harm certainly is a crime. Stalking behavior would certainly make such a threat seem more real, but is stalking without an explicit threat a crime?
It depends on jurisdiction of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking#Laws_on_stalking
The most effective method of fighting stalking, cyber or real, is to improve our coverage of these laws, including coverage on how effective these laws have been.
The full text of any law or judicial decision can be placed onto Wikisource, annotated and discussed, and translated into other languages. On en.WS, use {{PD-GovEdict}}.
-- John
Nathan wrote:
Who David Shankbone is, and why he is relevant to this thread, is explained in the link found in the first post. He was a prolific member of the English Wikipedia and (I believe) English Wikinews, interviewing a number of high profile individuals and uploading multiple thousands of original photos. He's since left the projects, due in part to harassment that he describes in the linked article.
Thanks. Fortunately, I had not yet deleted that post. Durova's post to which I was responding left the impression that David Shankbone could be a character from /Grand Theft Auto/.
I'm not a participant in the Digg website, but it seems that the chatter that is going on there can't be very helpful for solving the problem.
Ec
David Shankbone is the author of the article at the beginning of this thread. I haven't been involved deeply enough in en.wp to have any real familiarity with him, but apparently he has taken photographs for many biography articles, including well-known musicians, actors, and world politicians. He was driven off Wikipedia by a stalker.
On 10/06/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Durova wrote:
Months ago I initiated a proposal to eliminate the word "wikistalking" because of exactly the problem that has manifested in this thread: it takes a serious crime and trivializes it, fostering confusion on a subject where victims already have a very difficult time making themselves heard and believed.
Once people have started using a word in a certain way you can't start pretending that they haven't. There is such a thing as cyberstalking, and I would tend to interpret wikistalking as a subset of that. Cyberstalking may very well have little if anything in common with "real" stalking, and use of that term may indeed result in trivialization. That doesn't change the fact that people use the word in the way that they do. That's why it's so important to begin by making sure we are all talking about the same thing.
Rules and laws will generally assume an ordinary dictionary definition in the absence of an onsite definition to override that. Where a word has multiple meanings a reader has the option to use whichever of those definitions suits him. This also applies where different dictionaries have different definitions, or usage has already gone beyond the dictionary. English dictionaries, in particular are more descriptive than prescriptive. Thus we sacrifice dictionary certainty for the sake of having a richer environment of word formation.
In cases of doubt one defines one's terms, and applies that definition strictly. That does wonders for maintaining focus in a subject.
With the notable exception of Gerard and a few others, this conversation is occurring on an absurd level.
Do we do any better by keeping it at an anecdotal level?
It's as if David Shankbone had stepped forward to announce that his car had been stolen, and responses had confused real auto theft with the game "Grand Theft Auto."
Who's David Shankbone? I don't see where anyone has said that any of these stalking claims were only a part of some video game.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org