On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
I see a lot of good points being made here, and I frankly don't know what to think about some of the issues raised. But I'd like to offer this perspective.
On wasting time on recalcitrants: I (obviously) totally sympathize with those who say they don't want to waste their time dealing with recalcitrant users.
Wikipedia contributors can be difficult in a variety of ways. Not all of them require banning, and the most common types can't:
<snip laundry list of "difficult" contributors>
It is a detrimental approach to come up with categories of problem contributors. Every contributor is individual, emotional, biased, and a bit kooky. Noone is perfectly normal--that's just the average. Rather, we should try to avoid CommunityExile (see MeatballWiki) if possible.
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define those behaviors.
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought we should ban 24.
This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any* one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Done with Wikipedia for today, Larry
On 10/25/02 12:47 PM, "Larry Sanger" lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
<snip
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define those behaviors.
Basically, we shouldn't.
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought we should ban 24.
If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point in trying to explain. But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think that ideally we should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push, given the circumstances.
This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any* one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty". That's certainly praise, if faint.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
<snip
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define those behaviors.
Basically, we shouldn't.
OK, that's news. Virtually everyone else on Wikipedia disagrees with you.
But it's nice that you agree with me that it was a list of difficult behaviors, and that you were mistaken about that.
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought we should ban 24.
If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point in trying to explain.
Could you please avoid twisting my words around? It's an awful habit. I *said*: I don't read MeatballWiki, etc. This doesn't mean that I don't want to understand your view. I just think it's unreasonable for you to ask us to go to MeatballWiki to learn what you mean. :-) You disagree? We *should* all go there, because you start using words defined there?
But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think that ideally we should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push, given the circumstances.
No, Cunc, that's not what I remember. You said we should ban 24. You were in favor of banning him. Please don't make us go find the original posts...
And you still haven't given any good reasons, on this list, for a total ban on banning.
This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any* one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty". That's certainly praise, if faint.
Just to raise your awareness: ;-) You mean you think I meant it with no sarcasm or facetiousness at all?
Larry
On 10/25/02 1:12 PM, "Larry Sanger" lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
<snip
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define those behaviors.
Basically, we shouldn't.
OK, that's news. Virtually everyone else on Wikipedia disagrees with you.
I think that most people would agree that in an ideal situation, banning would be unnecessary. I think that some people
But it's nice that you agree with me that it was a list of difficult behaviors, and that you were mistaken about that.
?
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought we should ban 24.
If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point in trying to explain.
Could you please avoid twisting my words around? It's an awful habit.
Couldn't agree more.
I *said*: I don't read MeatballWiki, etc. This doesn't mean that I don't want to understand your view. I just think it's unreasonable for you to ask us to go to MeatballWiki to learn what you mean. :-) You disagree? We *should* all go there, because you start using words defined there?
You said "I don't know if that's what 'avoiding CommunityExile' means, and I don't care." which is equivalent to "I don't care that I don't know what [what you're saying] means", which I interpreted as "I don't want to understand what you're saying".
Hardly twisting words around.
I appreciate that you're specifically saying that you don't want to understand what I'm saying, if to understand you need to visit MeatballWiki.
I do think that's unreasonable.
But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think that ideally we should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push, given the circumstances.
No, Cunc, that's not what I remember. You said we should ban 24. You were in favor of banning him. Please don't make us go find the original posts...
Let me.
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001892.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001899.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001905.html
And you still haven't given any good reasons, on this list, for a total ban on banning.
See WikipediAhimsa.
<snip>
I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty". That's certainly praise, if faint.
Just to raise your awareness: ;-) You mean you think I meant it with no sarcasm or facetiousness at all?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, yes.
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
I think that most people would agree that in an ideal situation, banning would be unnecessary
I think everyone would agree. However, since our situation is less than ideal, I don't see the relevance.
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 13:52, Gareth Owen wrote:
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
I think that most people would agree that in an ideal situation, banning would be unnecessary
I think everyone would agree. However, since our situation is less than ideal, I don't see the relevance.
It's just the same with NPOV. NPOV is the ideal situation. Our situation is less than ideal. That doesn't mean NPOV is not relevant.
These things are relevant since we have near-complete power to define the rules of the society--and the environment in which the society exist. Wikipedia is almost a purely closed system, having a relationship with the "real world" only (just about) at the intersections of law (limited to copyright issues, mostly) and physical constraints (which are very limited; as Jimbo has said, we can assume infinite disk space). The other primary limiting factors are human behavior and software capability. Both of these factors are highly malleable, given time and the right approach.
In short, with effort, we should be able to approximate the ideal as close as necessary.
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care.
No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values of a community. It is, however, a group of people who analyze, discuss and build online communities. Many of them are experts in this area. Learning from what others have done (and not done) is not the same as looking to others to define Wikipedia.
There's a rich history from older wiki communities and projects that we can, and should, draw upon, just as we draw upon existing sources for encyclopedia articles.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care.
No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values of a community. It is, however, a group of people who analyze, discuss and build online communities. Many of them are experts in this area.
"Experts"? There are no experts in this area. Or, if there are, all of us are.
Learning from what others have done (and not done) is not the same as looking to others to define Wikipedia.
I agree with that, but asking us to go to MeatballWiki to learn the terms of the debate is a bit much. I have limited time for Wikipedia. If you want to introduce a new term from MeatballWiki, together with all the values that it implies, then by all means do so--but do so *here*, on this list.
There's a rich history from older wiki communities and projects that we can, and should, draw upon, just as we draw upon existing sources for encyclopedia articles.
Maybe. I'm not actually sure that that's true; Wikipedia is a completely new thing. It's a wiki, but it's a lot more than a wiki.
OK, now I really *am* done for today. Larry
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values
of a
community. It is, however, a group of people who analyze, discuss and build online communities.
Many of
them are experts in this area.
"Experts"? There are no experts in this area. Or, if there are, all of us are.
That's an odd statement. There's no Ph.Ds, for certain. But there are people who have years of experience building, and failing to build, online communities. I humbly submit that they have far more expertise then you or I in this area (unless, of course, you have more experience at this than I'm aware of).
Learning from what others have done (and not done)
is not the same as
looking to others to define Wikipedia.
I agree with that, but asking us to go to MeatballWiki to learn the terms of the debate is a bit much. I have limited time for Wikipedia. If you want to introduce a new term from MeatballWiki, together with all the values that it implies, then by all means do so--but do so *here*, on this list.
Absolutely.
There's a rich history from older wiki communities
and projects that
we can, and should, draw upon, just as we draw
upon existing sources
for encyclopedia articles.
Maybe. I'm not actually sure that that's true; Wikipedia is a completely new thing. It's a wiki, but it's a lot more than a wiki.
Perhaps, but we're still building on a foundation that's largely wiki, and many of our problems have also been faced by other wikis.
There are lots of other sources to learn from too: older encyclopedia projects (why did they fail?), commercial encyclopedias (is there anything we can leverage from them in our project?) and the rise(s) and fall(s) of other great Internet experiments (Usenet, Slashdot).
Ok, I'll stop before I veer too far off inanother direction. It's just I sometimes feel that we don't use these sources knowledge available to us. Of course, we're all busy, and there's only so much we can do at once. Talking about the project should never replace working on it.
OK, now I really *am* done for today. Larry
I know the feeling. It's 2:00 am in my part of the world. Goodnight...
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
"Experts"? There are no experts in this area. Or,
That's an odd statement. There's no Ph.Ds, for certain.
Is anybody here interested in "going academic" on this topic? We could set up a page on the meta wiki with pointers to published papers, research groups, etc. Or did anybody do this already?
Larry Sanger wrote in part:
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values of a community. It is, however, a group of people who analyze, discuss and build online communities. Many of them are experts in this area.
"Experts"? There are no experts in this area. Or, if there are, all of us are.
Most people would say the same about the subject of reality, and many other philosophical subjects.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org