[WikiEN-l] The Register decries Wikipedia's "censorship" via OTRS

[geni]

On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:19:55 +0100, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The problem is that certain OTRS people appear to want WP:OFFICE level
> >powers without either gaining community support or a board ruling.
>
> {{fact}}
>
> I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for
> people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up.

Being able to enforce this is office level powers.

> Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;

Um I suspect that may be problematical in some situations because it
could be used as admission that there was a problem.

> step
> 2: tell people as much about why as you can.

given the level of legal qualification on OTRS what makes you think
you know what that is?

>Step 3: when possessed of
> as many of the facts as possible, proceed with caution.
>
> People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them.
> Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with
> somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at
> every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even
> if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.

Removing verifiable material is harmful.

>
> As with any trusted position in Wikipedia, isolation and burnout are a
> risk.  Do be sure to be as kind and supportive as you can to the
> volunteers, because there are barely enough to keep on top of the
> flood of email, some of which requires a very great deal of work to
> get to the bottom of.

So get more people. En.pedia got seven new admins last week. How many
have been invited to OTRS?

> Or of course you could always stand on the outside pissing in, but
> since all that will do is increase the siege mentality about which you
> appear to be complaining I don't consider it a smart alternative.

False dilemma logical fallacy


-- 
geni