[WikiEN-l] WikiAbuse gone
steven.walling at gmail.com
Sat Jul 14 05:30:41 UTC 2007
"a kindlier, gentler attack site"? That's supposed to be a defence? It's
like saying some Nazis weren't as bad as Goering.
I'm not defending the validity of the lawsuit. What I was criticizing is an
attack on those who criticise a site built for the express purpose of
criticism. Saying that WA has the right to snipe at every little action
taken by admins, and then calling those who give equally harsh criticism of
WA "cowards" is obvious hypocrisy. Aren't the cowards those who build an
entire separate, anonymous apparatus for taking potshots (even useful ones)
at admins the cowards? Why not have some balls and try and affect a real,
lasting change from within Wikipedia, rather than running away and creating
a space for disgruntled users to tell their sob story without any
opportunity for rebuttal?
On 7/13/07, Mark Gallagher <fuddlemark at gmail.com> wrote:
> G'day Steven,
> (Top-posting fixed. Please don't do it again.)
> > On 7/13/07, Mark Gallagher <fuddlemark at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> G'day Guy,
> >>> A good idea, flawed in execution. Now taken down due to legal
> >>> threats.
> >> If it's true --- and I'd like a lot more detail before I concede
> >> such a point --- then this is Terrible. What slimy coward thought
> >> it appropriate to threaten WA?
> > Oh, I dunno, some slimy coward who's good intentioned works on
> > wikipedia, and possibly their actual person, was being slandered by
> > anonymous blowhards accountable to no one.
> Strikes me that the same argument has been made by WR and WA fans,
> notably including Daniel Brandt. It was a poorly-thought and
> inappropriate argument then, and it's a poorly-thought and inappropriate
> argument now.
> Did you actually read WA at all? It attempted to be a kindler, gentler
> attack site. It gave me the willies, being run by a known dickhead, but
> it was easy to see that: a) it was doing no harm, and b) if its stated
> intentions were genuine, it could actually be a Force For Good.
> What on WA was lawsuit-worthy, and why are we not to know who was
> involved? I can think of two possibilities, but perhaps there are more.
> One is that Joe is lying about the lawsuit, a distinct possibility
> (but one that doesn't excuse your defence of such a suit). The other is
> that whoever threatened him also insisted that he not name them, hence:
> that party is a "slimy coward".
>  If you talk about slanderous anonymous blowhards, there are people
> out there --- more than you'd think --- who would assume the phrase
> best refers to Wikipedians. They wouldn't always be wrong, either.
>  I've yet to see an anti-Wikipedia site actually tell the truth about
> its intentions, but I'm willing to accept that maybe, just maybe,
> Joe was genuine here. He never got the chance to show us ...
> Mark Gallagher
> "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
> in the leg by a personal friend."
> - P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
More information about the WikiEN-l