[WikiEN-l] Re: Dispute resolution attempt in the Ashida Kim case

[Ryan W. (Merovingian)]

This is the first time I've heard of this thing, and it makes me very upset.

> From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution attempt in the Ashida Kim case
> 
> In the light of the recent escalation of the Ashida Kim case on Wikipedia, I
> have registered on Ashida Kim's board and made the following post in the
> General forum as a good faith attempt to open a dialog as the first step in
> resolving this issue. My username is Tony Sidaway.
> 
> 
> I don't think either Wikipedia or Ashida Kim comes out of this smelling of
> roses. I speak as an experienced editor and administrator at Wikipedia, and
> the person who last unprotected the article Ashida Kim on Wikipedia. I do
> not speak for Wikipedia, with which I have no formal connections, but as an
> individual. On Wikipedia, an administrator is like a mod on forums, a
> trusted editor who performs clerical tasks. Wikipedia is huge so there are
> hundreds of us.
> 
> First let me explain, without defensiveness, the way in which Wikipedia
> works. I'll do this solely in order that you'll understand why it behaves in
> the way it does.
> 
> First, it's a wiki, so anyone can edit it, unless we take the trouble to
> block them, which we can do by username or by IP. As you have found, it's
> extremely easy to evade a Wikipedia block. As you have also found, Wikipedia
> has immense human resources who are very vigilant, so it's difficult for
> anyone to evade a Wikipedia block for long.
> 
> Second, it's run by consensus of the users. The content of an article,
> subject to legal requirements such as copyright and defamation law, is
> decided by consensus. This is supplemented with policies of good faith
> editing, verifiability and neutrality.
> 
> Our deletion debates seem to have puzzled Ashida Kim. Contrary to his
> belief, we don't automatically delete an article if it's a vandalism
> target--having such a policy would make any article easy to destroy by
> malicious vandalism. Scientologists could attack the article on Scientology,
> creationists could attack the article on Evolution, and so on. We debate
> deletion to decide whether there is a rough consensus (which is usually 2/3
> or more of those voting) to delete. Editors in a deletion debate are
> expected to make their decision in good faith, and if a person with few
> edits appears in such a debate this may be taken as a sign of bad faith.
> Votes from so-called "meat puppets", people who appear on Wikipedia as a
> result of an exhortation on a board such as that we have seen from Ashida
> Kim, are not counted, and their appearance to vote in this way is often
> interpreted as a breach of good faith. This is because Wikipedia decisions
> are supposed to be those of the community, not of outsiders rounded up to
> pack a debate. Nevertheless a person who appears "out of the blue" and gives
> persuasive arguments may sway others in a debate.
> 
> I'm not happy with the article at present. It falls short of the quality I
> expect from Wikipedia, and I will probably take the opportunity to edit it
> towards a more neutral point of view when next it is unprotected. In that
> sense you can regard me as a potential friend on Wikipedia, and one whose
> voice is generally respected so my opinions will be listened to. But that's
> by-the-by. This doesn't mean I'm sympathetic to Ashida Kim or his methods,
> only that I'm committed to Wikipedia's ethic of neutrality.
> 
> Another point on which I think Ashida Kim may have a legitimate complaint is
> that the names and contact details of his friends were apparently placed
> into the article and Wikipedia may have been tardy in its response to this
> invasion of privacy. In my opinion that content should have been removed
> from the article editing history as soon as practically possible. Without
> examining what happened and when, which would take some time, I can't say
> for sure, but I take Ashida Kim's complaints in good faith and accept that
> there may be a case to answer. I will investigate further and recommend
> policy changes if I think they will help to stop Wikipedia being used for
> malicious purposes.
> 
> Ashida Kim's response to the situation, using private details about the
> founder of Wikipedia in a tit-for-tat attack, is in my opinion
> understandable although I do not condone it and hope that he will
> reconsider. This kind of escalation makes problem resolution more difficult
> to achieve. However I admit that in one sense it has been productive--it has
> focused my attention on Ashida Kim's legitimate complaint of invasion of
> privacy.
> 
> I think that we can arrive at a compromise that all will be happy with. We
> have tens of thousands of biographical articles of living people on
> Wikipedia, and only a tiny handful have ever been the cause of any serious
> problems.
> 
> I hope to start a dialog with a view to solving these problems. If email is
> preferred, please use the email address minorityreport at bluebottle.com,
> otherwise respond here. *
> 
> Edited by: Tony
> Sidaway<http://p206.ezboard.com/bashidakimmessageboards.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tonysidaway@ashidakimmessageboards>at:
> 10/4/05 8:46
> *
> 
> 
> ------------------------------

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales, July 2004


-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm