Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at gmail.com:
It's not a matter of whether Wikipedia "can" work with you. It's a
matter of whether it wants to. You've been banned, which means it doesn't want to work with you. It's not an inability, it's a choice.
Many individuals on Wikipedia were deeply opposed to the ban in question, and continue to be opposed. So when you 'it doesn't want to work with you', it's not clear what 'it' means.
In any case, there is nothing to stop a banned individual from working with others to improve the project. The question comes down to whether the project is to be improved or not.
For example, when our book on Scotus appears, what happens if any of the facts cited in the book are then incorporated into the article? Is copying from a book 'written by a banned user' something that Wikipedia will 'choose' not to do? What happens if I read out passages from the book to someone like Charles, and he edits the article using his own account. Is that prohibited by the 'banned' rule? In any case, I can't see anything in the banning policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN that prohibits this.
Stepping back, it would seem extraordinary to a member of the general public that any organisation whose purpose is the construction of a comprehensive and reliable reference work should be banning specialist editors in the first place. The usual reply, that 'crowdsourcing' will take the place of specialists, doesn't seem to work. I have pointed out some serious problems with an article about one of Britain's most prominent and influential philosophers, on this very forum, and the article hasn't improved in any way since last week. Is this good PR for Wikipedia or Wikimedia?
So I say it again: it's a matter of whether Wikipedia and Wikimedia 'can' work with the system to improve articles. There is in fact a choice.
Editing on behalf of banned users is against policy. Working with banned users isn't, but taking dictation from them would probably cross the line.
If you had been banned for being a specialist, the public would be understandably surprised, but you weren't. On May 28, 2012 9:49 AM, "Edward at Logic Museum" edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at gmail.com:
It's not a matter of whether Wikipedia "can" work with you. It's a
matter of whether it wants to. You've been banned, which means it
doesn't want to work with you. It's not an inability, it's a choice.
Many individuals on Wikipedia were deeply opposed to the ban in question, and continue to be opposed. So when you 'it doesn't want to work with you', it's not clear what 'it' means.
In any case, there is nothing to stop a banned individual from working with others to improve the project. The question comes down to whether the project is to be improved or not.
For example, when our book on Scotus appears, what happens if any of the facts cited in the book are then incorporated into the article? Is copying from a book 'written by a banned user' something that Wikipedia will 'choose' not to do? What happens if I read out passages from the book to someone like Charles, and he edits the article using his own account. Is that prohibited by the 'banned' rule? In any case, I can't see anything in the banning policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:BANhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BANthat prohibits this.
Stepping back, it would seem extraordinary to a member of the general public that any organisation whose purpose is the construction of a comprehensive and reliable reference work should be banning specialist editors in the first place. The usual reply, that 'crowdsourcing' will take the place of specialists, doesn't seem to work. I have pointed out some serious problems with an article about one of Britain's most prominent and influential philosophers, on this very forum, and the article hasn't improved in any way since last week. Is this good PR for Wikipedia or Wikimedia?
So I say it again: it's a matter of whether Wikipedia and Wikimedia 'can' work with the system to improve articles. There is in fact a choice.
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Editing on behalf of banned users is against policy. Working with banned users isn't, but taking dictation from them would probably cross the line.
No, it isnt against policy. The policy is that the person who does the editing takes responsibility for the edits they make.
There have been many instances of banned editors writing Wikipedia articles on another website, and these articles being imported to Wikipedia by editors in good standing.
-- John Vandenberg
On 29/05/12 00:38, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Editing on behalf of banned users is against policy. Working with banned users isn't, but taking dictation from them would probably cross the line.
No, it isnt against policy. The policy is that the person who does the editing takes responsibility for the edits they make.
There have been many instances of banned editors writing Wikipedia articles on another website, and these articles being imported to Wikipedia by editors in good standing.
-- John Vandenberg
So banned users, experts and all other third parties are good sources of wiki meat???
:-)
Gordo
On 28 May 2012 08:45, Edward at Logic Museum edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
Stepping back, it would seem extraordinary to a member of the general public that any organisation whose purpose is the construction of a comprehensive and reliable reference work should be banning specialist editors in the first place.
We don't. We ban problematical editors. Specialism or otherwise is largely irrelevant.
The usual reply, that 'crowdsourcing' will take the place of specialists, doesn't seem to work.
I suppose attacking a position that bares no relation to a vaguely defined group's real position technical moves you outside of normal strawman territory but it still presents the same logical problems
I have pointed out some serious problems with an article about one of Britain's most prominent and influential philosophers, on this very forum, and the article hasn't improved in any way since last week. Is this good PR for Wikipedia or Wikimedia?
You wish to appeal to PR? Not entirely sure that is a good strategy. May I suggest appealing to Glycon? It has a better reputation and of course would help you to cultivate a geek chic appearence if you wanted to.
So I say it again: it's a matter of whether Wikipedia and Wikimedia 'can' work with the system to improve articles. There is in fact a choice.
I'm sorry are you under the impression you are "the system"?
But aside from your rather meandering oddities the reality is that you have invested significant effort in attempting to disrupt the activities of wikimedia UK. This creates a trust problem to the point where it is rather hard to justify working with you on anything,
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org