I'm sorry -- I must have gotten stupid all of a sudden, because I could swear that, with a minimum of effort, any user could watch any other user. One simply bookmarks the user's contribution list -- this can be done with IP addresses. There's a watch page function -- that's another way to keep an eye on what's going on. Why is the suggestion of a "watch user" function getting people's knickers in a twist? The only people I think have a right to get uptight about this are the programmers, because it's extra work for functionality that's already there.
As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS -- if Jim wants to make a rule and enforce it, that's his prerogative. The fact that he waited so long to take such an action is admirable, although I think a serious threat at an earlier date might have helped to define the actions worthy of a ban. Moreover, the fact that Jim is willing to allow the people who use the playground to help define the rules of participation is generous and encourages wikipedians to feel part of a larger good. Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
That said, I think that, if bans are to be used, there should be a clear statement of the kinds of things that warrant a ban, as well as a posted escalation process (like a formal warning that the person is being considered for a ban, request to join the list, etc.).
Jules, who has only looked at recent changes once (so far) today.
--- Julie Hofmann Kemp juleskemp@yahoo.com wrote:
That said, I think that, if bans are to be used, there should be a clear statement of the kinds of things that warrant a ban, as well as a posted escalation process (like a formal warning that the person is being considered for a ban, request to join the list, etc.).
Yes, that seems to be prudent. If we write up a formal statement, banning someone will look less shadowy and subjective.
Jules, who has only looked at recent changes once (so far) today.
I'm sure you'll be able to simply watch RC and not make any edits...
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________ Yahoo! - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
At 2002-09-10 16:54 -0700, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS
No it doesn't: Jimmy and Bomis may host it, but they don't own it. Or they should have made it more clearly when I joined it. I am the author of a site about chips and it's hosted by about 30 mirror sites. They own not one iota of the contents of what they mirror. My 'original site' is hosted on the server of a Dutch internet provider and it doesn't own any of the copyrights of my site.
If Jimmy thinks he has certain rights I'd really like to hear about that.
-- if Jim wants to make a rule and enforce it, that's his prerogative.
No it's not. He may decide no longer to host the site. Of course he is also welcome to help run the organization, but he's not the dictator in a small tropical mini-state.
If he thinks otherwise, I'm interested to hear about ir.
The fact that he waited so long to take such an action is admirable,
Yes. He has been very tolerant. Perhaps too tolerant. ;-)
although I think a serious threat at an earlier date might have helped to define the actions worthy of a ban.
Indeed.
Moreover, the fact that Jim is willing to allow the people who use the playground to help define the rules of participation is generous and encourages wikipedians to feel part of a larger good.
Ah so you believe in this benevolent dictator stuff?
Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
Is your real name perhaps: Eva Perron? Or Eva Braun?
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
That said, I think that, if bans are to be used, there should be a clear statement of the kinds of things that warrant a ban, as well as a posted escalation process (like a formal warning that the person is being considered for a ban, request to join the list, etc.).
On this matter I completely agree with you and wished that I had expressed it so NPOV-like...
But well, uhm, we guys, we like fighting, testing each other out, we will have to go hunt the next day to get the meat and we need to be able to rely on each other 100%. You women only have to dig up roots etc.
Greetings, Jaap
PS. Try not to write in HTML please...
At 03:08 AM 9/11/02 +0200, Jaap wrote:
At 2002-09-10 16:54 -0700, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this
particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS
Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some
rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
Is your real name perhaps: Eva Perron? Or Eva Braun?
I believe we have an article on [[Godwin's Law]]. Please read it.
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be, justifiably, up in arms.
If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on this, or any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the insult. No, it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of anything except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 03:08 AM 9/11/02 +0200, Jaap wrote:
At 2002-09-10 16:54 -0700, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this
particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS
Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some
rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
Is your real name perhaps: Eva Perron? Or Eva Braun?
I believe we have an article on [[Godwin's Law]]. Please read it.
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be, justifiably, up in arms.
If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on this, or any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the insult. No, it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of anything except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
Actually, I got quite a laugh out of it.
Relieved a lot of recent built up tension. Might be an American blue collar trait which shares characteristics of the Netherland's history of commercial imperialism. OTOH I worked in a plywood plant in Oregon to finance my education, so I might just be a redneck.
I apologize for finding something humerous which you do not.
If that offends you, I truly think it is unfortunate that you find me offensive.
Regards, Mike Irwin
P.S. See the newcomer orientation pages history. I removed a few sexist remarks (admittedly not originated by you) there aimed at men but, did not request an apology. Nor did I pick up arms. Perhaps people vary in how they approach gender biases and humor.
At 07:58 PM 9/10/02 -0700, Michael Irwin wrote:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 03:08 AM 9/11/02 +0200, Jaap wrote:
As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this
particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people
would be,
justifiably, up in arms.
If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on this, or any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the insult. No, it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of anything except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
Actually, I got quite a laugh out of it.
You aren't the one being insulted.
Relieved a lot of recent built up tension. Might be an American blue collar trait which shares characteristics of the Netherland's history of commercial imperialism. OTOH I worked in a plywood plant in Oregon to finance my education, so I might just be a redneck.
Not a blue-collar/other distinction, I think, so much as that it's much easier to find insults funny when you aren't the one being insulted.
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 03:08 AM 9/11/02 +0200, Jaap wrote:
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be, justifiably, up in arms.
If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on this, or any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the insult. No, it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of anything except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
I agree. Category-based insults such as this are unwarranted and grossly offensive. An apology would be appropriate.
Neil
At 2002-09-10 21:28 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be, justifiably, up in arms.
Not if what you were saying was correct. I could compose quite a big list with 'bad' habits of men.
Okay, the first sentence is a bit overdone. There are women who do quite well in politics. ;-)
The sentence that one shouldn't start serious discussions with women is from my own experience. Woman tend to take arguments personally, will think that you're a 'bad person' when you're not thinking what the rest of the community thinks etc.
As regards the genetics. Men were selected for being good co-operators during the hunt. They would discuss hunting tactics around the fire but the next day they would have to hunt again together and be able to trust each other even if they disagreed the last evening. Men were selected not to have a problem with that. For them discussions are a game, which they like, but don't take overly serious. We like the men best that are the toughest in the discussion, becasuse they come up with the best arguments. In ancient days that could mean the difference between having food or not and therefore between survival and not.
Women used to tend to the children and gather roots and fruit etc. It was not necessary to cooperate with other women and it would even be bad for her family to share the findings or knowledge about where to find things.
When one of the men would kill a large beast however, he would need the help of the others to transport it back to the base and it would be foolish not to share it, because it would spoil very soon or be eaten by bugs in the African climate and usually the hunting process was a combined effort anyway.
Another matter is the woman's IQ. Prof. Dr. H. J. Eysenck has interesting theories about this. He poses that men have a bigger diversity in all kinds of properties, due to the fact that they are missing one 'leg' in their Y-chromosoom. This means that for a lot of properties their fenotype is based on only one gene and that can be a recessive gene. (A woman would need two of those genes to have the same fenotype.) The major example is colorblindness: This affliction is much more common under men than under women. Probably a factor of four. Eysenck argues that since the IQ is very complex some of it's genes will probably also reside on the Y-chromosome and therefore IQ will also vary more widely in men. Even assuming that men and women have the same average IQ (which is not unlikely) it would account for the fact that there is a lack of intelligent women. It's about 1 in 30. On the other hand it also explains why there is also an excess of dumb men on the other end of the scale. He noticed for example that in the lower social classes the woman is usually smarter and handles practical things like filling in tax forms.
If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on this, or any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the insult. No, it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of anything except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
QED
Vicki Rosenzweig
By the way, when you're jewish as your name suggests, you can add about 15 points to your average IQ. Perhaps that explains why you're one of the few women here?
If anybody is interested in these matters, I suggest reading books like: - Eysenck, H.J. - Intelligence: The battle for the mind. - 1981 On the development of mankind: - Desmond Morris - The naked ape - 1967 In Dutch: - Marcel Roele - De Mietjesmaatschappij - (this is a book with a lot more about modern 'politically correct' fallacies, including an article about average IQ's that really differ from race to race) - 2000
Ah, and before I forget: I may try to avoid discussions with women, but I talk with them and emancipation comes up from time to time and there is also a downside to the current tendency to assume that women should have careers too. Some women don't want a career but just want to have children and take care of them, but in our current folly that women are the same as men we are doing that kind of women injustice by giving them a guild complex, about not working. And we are maybe depriving the children of a happy childhood with their mommy.
And to avoid that some of you, especially you Americans (and French), may think I'm not that bad after all: I think that all drugs should be legalized.
Greetings, Jaap
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 20:53, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
At 2002-09-10 21:28 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be, justifiably, up in arms.
Not if what you were saying was correct. I could compose quite a big list with 'bad' habits of men.
The only thing i'd say in response to this amazing heap of garbage is that it's clear Jaap has never been involved in any form of hunting, or any form of child-rearing...
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
Is this what passes for humor in the Netherlands or are you just an asshole? I can never tell.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
At 2002-09-10 18:48 -0800, Brion VIBBER wrote:
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women. One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
Is this what passes for humor in the Netherlands or are you just an asshole? I can never tell.
I'm 43 now and together with a lot of brain cells I lost my sense of humor.
It's said. :-(
Greetings, Jaap
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
No it doesn't: Jimmy and Bomis may host it, but they don't own it. Or they should have made it more clearly when I joined it. I am the author of a site about chips and it's hosted by about 30 mirror sites. They own not one iota of the contents of what they mirror. My 'original site' is hosted on the server of a Dutch internet provider and it doesn't own any of the copyrights of my site.
If Jimmy thinks he has certain rights I'd really like to hear about that.
Owning the site and owning the contents are two different things. If he really got pissed off he could always pull the server's power cord out of the wall, and nobody could legally force him to put it back in. If it comes to that, and nobody has kept the data independently backed up at a physically separate site, then that's the end of it.
Jimmy's royal prerogatives are not about dictatorship or being a control freak, they're about finance. Until a critical mass of Wikipedians have shown the capacity to deal with the project's fiscal administration, it's simply a reality whether we like it or not. Such a state of affairs obviously includes possible dangers to the project, but so do other financing models .
Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon. No one has any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.
Is your real name perhaps: Eva Perron? Or Eva Braun?
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
Eva Peron was loved by her people. Eva Braun is historically insignificant. It's unjust to put the blame for her husband's misdeeds on her.
Comparing Julie to Eva Peron might even be a compliment.
Julie is a Wikipediholic, and we would love the opportunity to drink with her without Genral Booth's Dutch minions banging bass drums in out ears.
But well, uhm, we guys, we like fighting, testing each other out, we will have to go hunt the next day to get the meat and we need to be able to rely on each other 100%. You women only have to dig up roots etc.
I thought that Holland was such a flat country that people didn't live in caves anymore.
At 2002-09-10 21:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
No it doesn't: Jimmy and Bomis may host it, but they don't own it. Or they should have made it more clearly when I joined it. I am the author of a site about chips and it's hosted by about 30 mirror sites. They own not one iota of the contents of what they mirror. My 'original site' is hosted on the server of a Dutch internet provider and it doesn't own any of the copyrights of my site.
If Jimmy thinks he has certain rights I'd really like to hear about that.
Owning the site and owning the contents are two different things. If he really got pissed off he could always pull the server's power cord out of the wall, and nobody could legally force him to put it back in. If it comes to that, and nobody has kept the data independently backed up at a physically separate site, then that's the end of it.
Jimmy's royal prerogatives are not about dictatorship or being a control freak, they're about finance. Until a critical mass of Wikipedians have shown the capacity to deal with the project's fiscal administration, it's simply a reality whether we like it or not. Such a state of affairs obviously includes possible dangers to the project, but so do other financing models .
Of course I appriciate what Jimmy is doing, because I think that Wikipedia is at least an interesting project. I'm sure that Jimmy has been tested more severally than through what I did. And when not: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
However I think that financing a site which works on the principle of GPL shouldn't give the owner of the hardware special privileges, like being a benign dictator as regards to banning people.
Anyone noticed the strange dualisme between me defending Helga's case and in the mean time insulting 2.5 billion women which Vicki in turn sees as a personal insult?
Julie is a Wikipediholic, and we would love the opportunity to drink with her without Genral Booth's Dutch minions banging bass drums in out ears.
And I like women that hang-out-with the boys (and I mean this in a positive sense) very much. Julie seems to be the Queen of Wikipedia. And you probably know that our country is run by a real queen that 95% of us admire.
But well, uhm, we guys, we like fighting, testing each other out, we will have to go hunt the next day to get the meat and we need to be able to rely on each other 100%. You women only have to dig up roots etc.
I thought that Holland was such a flat country that people didn't live in caves anymore.
Well, we managed to build a metro in Rotterdam under the clay and sand...
;-)
Greetings, Jaap
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
Wellllll, that leaves plenty of other fields to discuss about anyway.
Sex, education, music, history, litterature, games, sports, cooking, religion
Just these can fill a lifetime of discussions
But well, uhm, we guys, we like fighting, testing each other out, we will have to go hunt the next day to get the meat and we need to be able to rely on each other 100%. You women only have to dig up roots etc.
yeah, and fortunately we, women, also educate the kids :-)
__________________________________________________ Yahoo! - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org