[Foundation-l] On the cost of explaining things.

[Dan Rosenthal]

That's all well and good Durova, but this isn't about you. This  
thread, "on the cost of explaining things"  is about the foundation  
and the cost/benefit analysis of explaining actions vs. transparency.  
You were at most a 1 sentence side note with the disclaimer "I don't  
want to bring this up in detail". Nobody was "discussing" something  
you did behind your back. There was one mention of "the list" by chad,  
and a correction by Jimmy, neither of which I recall mentioning you by  
name.

-Swatjester
On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:04 AM, Durova wrote:

> Once again I discover in passing that people are discussing  
> something I did
> without actually talking to me.  My e-mail is enabled; I'm not hard to
> find.  I get this list in digest form; it would be rather nice to  
> have been
> approached directly, or at least to have gotten a friendly heads up.
>
> Sometimes memes overtake a discussion and this has been one of those
> instances.  The news reports really were quite far off base.  The only
> journalist who checked the facts with me before publishing a piece  
> about it
> was Seth Finkelstein.  The other stories were mistaken on several  
> points on
> both facts and tone.  I'll trust that the Wikipedians who went on  
> record
> were sincere, but they really hadn't double checked either.
>
> I made a mistake and am very sorry for it.  Within 75 minutes I  
> realized
> that and unblocked the account with apologies.  The editor wasn't even
> online at the time.  I specifically opened my actions to scrutiny on  
> an
> administrative noticeboard and made a statement to clear that editor  
> of
> suspicion, asking that scrutiny concentrate on my actions alone.   
> Afterward
> I shared my research with a few individuals, telling them I was  
> ashamed of
> the mistake, and asking for private feedback.  Someone violated that  
> trust.
> And then, two days later, another person published it.  I had already
> extended apologies to the individual before he published it, and I  
> had asked
> the people who were defending me at his user talk to withdraw their
> statements.  He had a right to be angry with me too and I did my  
> best to
> atone for it, but he was implacable.
>
> The list was called cyberstalking and was, for the most part,  
> exactly what
> that name implies.  It doesn't take long on a Google search to see  
> that I
> had been the target of some particularly vicious online attacks.   
> I'll give
> one example because it's already public.  Here's a community ban I  
> sought
> because I discovered that an editor who admitted to an arrest record  
> and an
> inpatient psychiatric history was posting graphic sexual fantasies  
> about me
> both on Wikipedia and on his private website.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Proposed_community_ban_of_Arkhamite_and_68.84.17.112
>
> I was up front and candid about that when most women wouldn't be,  
> and the
> result of that candor is a certain attack site has been paraphrasing  
> the
> incident in a manner designed to discredit me.  According to them, I  
> saw the
> editor's fictional reference to Arkham Asylum of the Batman comics  
> and went
> on a rampage for no reason at all.  Well I don't happen to read  
> graphic
> novels and didn't notice that allusion until someone pointed it out  
> to me
> after the fact.  Another administrator deleted his user page; the  
> rest of my
> evidence ought to speak for itself.  And that particular incident  
> was the
> tip of the iceberg.
>
> The people who populated that list were untrained amateurs - well
> intentioned - but making their newbie mistakes.  Most of them were  
> just
> fine, yet the luck of the draw was that each time I brought a specific
> instance of harassment to their attention one or more people  
> intervened in a
> way that made things worse.  I am nearly untrollable, but not being  
> able to
> trust the people who were close to me was much harder to take.  My
> concentration and judgement slipped; I realized that in retrospect.   
> And I
> wrote an experimental report that wasn't all that much like my  
> previous
> work, then made the mistake of acting upon it.  I regret that deeply  
> and I
> regret the hassle it caused.  Now I'm endeavoring to rebuild the  
> reputation
> I damaged.  Do 99 investigations right and get one wrong; everyone  
> remembers
> the mistake.
>
> And I would very much appreciate it if, in future, people seek their
> information from the horse's mouth.
>
> -Durova
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l