[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom

[Chad]

Likely, not always. Just because someone is disruptive somewhere doesn't mean
they will be again. What happened to assume good faith?

Chad

On Jan 18, 2008 5:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> It may not have a basis in fact. However, when a person comes along
> condemning the WMF, and being accused of being disruptive in other projects
> I do not have to spend *my *time on him or on his arguments. When the guy is
> more moderate in his language I may read him next time.
>
> There is no excuse for trashing or trolling other peoples projects. There is
> no excuse for someone from one WMF project to troll on other WMF projects
> either. The notion that someone should be given a safe haven because he can
> be constructive on any particular wiki is likely to be for as long as such a
> project conforms to his ideas.. When people are disruptive elsewhere and use
> unacceptable means, they are likely to become disruptive when things happen
> that they do not like. Alternatively, they grow up.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2008 11:29 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> > Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > > On 17/01/2008, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The two are completely unrelated. So long as he behaves himself around
> > >> here, It doesnt matter what he does elsewhere.
> > >>
> > > Of course it does. We're not in this to dish out justice, we're here
> > > to generate and distribute free content. Someone who is disruptive
> > > elsewhere is likely to be disruptive here and hinder us in achieving
> > > our goals, so we should treat them pretty much the same as we treat
> > > people who have already been disruptive here. It's important to be
> > > mindful of the details - in some cases, there might be something more
> > > going on than simple vandalism (I don't know the details of this
> > > case), but I see see no problem in using all the information we have
> > > at our disposal in making decisions.
> > This view is inconsistent with your other post about a steward taking
> > action on Wikibooks for a ban on Wikipedia.  Although I would still
> > strongly disagree with that steward's action it remains relatively more
> > defensible when two sister projects are involved, than when the supposed
> > bad behaviour took place on a completely unrelated site.  We certainly
> > have no time to go into detailed analysis of activity on other sites to
> > find out if the accusations are justified.  Your presumption that a
> > person who is disruptive on another site would be disruptive here has no
> > basis in fact.
> >
> > True as it may be that we're not here to dish out justice, that
> > statement confuses ands and means. The free content is about ends, and
> > to whatever extent justice is relevant it is about means.  If we are not
> > here to dish out justice that applies equally to the head and tail of
> > justice.  Debates about whether someone's treatment is just is about the
> > head of justice.  Meting out punishments that may have been prescribed
> > elsewhere is about dishing out the tail of justice.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>