[WikiEN-l] Time to reboot wikien-l

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>:

> On Nov 21, 2007 6:10 PM,  <joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Furthermore, this isn't the only example. I'd love to see for
>> >> example an
>> >> >> >> explanation of how the Making Lights fiasco was somehow a
>> >> result of the
>> >> >> >> "anti-BADSITES proponents".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm not sure I understand this point.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is relevant to the original point at the start of this
>> >> subthread. If you
>> >> >> recall, the assertion was made that often the act of removing
>> >> links creates
>> >> >> more drama than it helps with two examples, Black's blog and Making
>> >> >> Lights. You
>> >> >> asserted that wasn't the case and that the drama in such
>> >> situations was the
>> >> >> fault of the "anti-BADSITES proponents". I'm attempting to
>> >> >> understand how the
>> >> >> Making Lights problem was caused by the "anti-BADSITES proponents".
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, the original action wasn't, of course, but the constant
>> >> > flag-waving by the "anti-BADSITES proponents" of an error made long
>> >> > ago and quickly rectified and apologized for, is, of course, designed
>> >> > for heat not light. People make mistakes, even when applying actual
>> >> > policies - for example, people are regularly blocked for 3RR when they
>> >> > haven't actually violated 3RR. We don't then repeatedly bring up those
>> >> > mistakes as "proof" that the policies are bad.
>> >>
>> >> See David's reponse to this. The fact hat Will seemed to maintain well
>> >> after the
>> >> fact that this was still a problem and the fact that Tony, Mongo 
>> and Thuranx
>> >> continued to push for some form of BADSITES means that it wasn't nearly
>> >> as much
>> >> a strawman or as dead as it should have been.
>> >
>> > See above. Dead horse, three non-admins.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Yes, three editors two of whom are prominent and are former 
>> admins with many
>> >> political ties (and let's not pretend that doesn't matter), and again
>> >> they were
>> >> only the most prominent.
>> >
>> > Insisting that editors are "prominent" and have "many political ties"
>> > feeds into the conspiratorial worldview promulgated by banned users on
>> > less than savory websites. Please don't try to build these people up
>> > into some frightening powerful force; they're just 3 editors, no less,
>> > but certainly no more.
>>
>> It doesn't require conspiracy mongering to see that some editors are more
>> influential than others and that some have more political ties than 
>> others (I
>> should know. I'm an influential editor with a variety of political ties).
>
> Um, o.k. It still seems to pretty much boil down to MONGO the scary.
>
>> >> >> >> (Incidentally, as someone who was and remains
>> >> >> >> strongly opposed to BADSITES I object to your characterization of
>> >> >> >> such editors
>> >> >> >> as part of an amorphous "they" who desire "drama").
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "BADSITES" itself is the rallying cry. So far we seem to 
>> have a whole
>> >> >> > bunch of people who have been going around for months now 
>> VERY LOUDLY
>> >> >> > "opposing" something that was proposed as a strawman, and apparently
>> >> >> > supported as policy by one editor.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We have quite a few more editors than a single one. The fact is that
>> >> >> many people
>> >> >> are understandably worried that something like BADSITES is going
>> >> to continue
>> >> >> either as policy or as de facto behavior. I do wish that people
>> >> >> wouldn't focus
>> >> >> so much on BADSITES and indeed most reasonable editors aren't 
>> doing so.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then why does it keep being mentioned again and again and again?
>> >>
>> >> Again, because people are worried.
>> >
>> > If they were just worried, they'd simply make rational arguments.
>> > Constant cries of BADSITES and of "remember the Making Light
>> > incident!" are ways of short-circuiting rational thought.
>>
>> No, they are a way of saying "Hey look. We had this really bad example
>> that got
>> us bad press and made a number of our natural supporters such as 
>> Cory Doctorow
>> really unhappy with us. And it harmed our uncyclopedia content. Let's be
>> careful that new policies don't have the same problem."
>
> Bad press? New York Times, that sort of thing? It looked like a
> tempest in a teapot to me. It's true, we are a top 10 website, but I
> think it tends to make us think our little wikidramas are far more
> public than they really are. Believe me, the press (and certainly
> academia) aren't going to start thinking our articles are well-written
> or trustworthy based on whether or not we link to some conspiracy
> theorist's blog. Really.
>
>> >> Look at the history and talk page of NPA
>> >> where we've had repeated attempts now to insert language very 
>> similar to the
>> >> original BADSITES language. It is getting mentioned because to 
>> some extent
>> >> people have been (at least until a few days ago) pushing for it.
>> >
>> > In your view I'm sure that it's "very similar to the BADSITES
>> > language". How do the proponents view it, though? How do outside
>> > observers view it? Is it close to BADSITES, or close to LOVELINKS, or
>> > somewhere in between? There's no question that Wikipedia needs to find
>> > an effective way of dealing with harassment of its volunteers; as long
>> > as Wikipedia is a top 10 website, and remains "The encyclopedia
>> > anybody can edit", this will remain a problem.
>>
>> I have an idea. Why don't you look at what Mongo et al. said on the 
>> talk page
>> and then see if you can point to any way that anyone would think it 
>> was at all
>> different.
>
> MONGO again. Lesse, he posts to the talk page, and within five hours
> Dtobias shows up crying BADSITES! That pretty much shuts down rational
> discussion. Oh, and Dan provides yet another link to his essay "Why
> BADSITES is bad policy".  Some more back and forth, and then WR
> regular Viridae opens an ArbCom case about MONGO in an attempt to shut
> down dissent, err, sorry, I mean discuss perceived behavioral issues.
>
>>
>> >>>> After
>> >>>> BADSITES failed Mongo and Thuranx then tried to get nearly identical
>> >>>> language
>> >>>> in NPA.
>> >>>
>> >>> So it was down to two non-admins then. Did they think the language was
>> >>> "nearly identical", or did they think it was along the lines of
>> >>> LINKLOVE?
>> >
>> >> You can read the talk pages. From the description their it seemed 
>> to me that
>> >> they thought it was identical to BADSITES.
>> >
>> > I'd rather let them speak for themselves, rather than have their
>> > opponents speak for them.
>>
>> Ok, so why not ask them?
>
> I don't regularly correspond with either, and I'm not tempted to speak
> on their behalf. I was suggesting that others not attempt this either.
>
>> >> >
>> >> >> But as
>> >> >> long as the specter remains people are going to be 
>> understandably upset.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, not understandably. It was a strawman, plain and simple, that was
>> >> > never policy. It's been used quite effectively for months now, but
>> >> > only as a strawman (or a rallying cry).
>> >>
>> >> Um, what? It is hardly a strawman when two former admins are strongly
>> >> supporting
>> >> it.
>> >
>> > Did you read what you said? "Two former admins are strongly supporting
>> > it". There are over 1,000 admins on Wikipedia, and you've come up with
>> > two former admins, who aren't even supporting BADSITES, but rather
>> > something you've labelled as BADSITES.
>>
>> Gah. Both supported BADSITES. Read above and look at their talk page 
>> comments.
>> When BADSITES failed Mongo supported something which was functionally
>> identical
>> to BADSITES.
>
>> From your anti-BADSITES perspective.
>
>> And considering of 1000 admins what fraction are active on most
>> policy pages (50 at most?) 2 isn't a non-trivial amount.
>
> 2 *non*-admins. Out of many thousands of editors.
>
>> Keep in mind that I'm
>> not arguing that there was a majority for it, merely that there were
>> people who
>> were established editors who didn't see it as a strawman.
>
> Yes, it fooled a number of people. It seems to me it fooled far more
> people on the anti-BADSITES side than on the pro; the former have
> certainly gotten vastly more mileage out of it.

Ok, this is my last comment about something: it is very hard to call 
something a
strawman when it supported by long-term editors. Indeed if anything 
that should
be a cause for concern that something that some people think (and maybe even
was) intended as a strawman got support. At least it wasn't titled "A moder
proposal about links"

>> >> >> As
>> >> >> soon as we get LINKLOVE approved (that name does sound very
>> >> >> Orwellian, can we
>> >> >> get a better shortcut?) this will die out.
>> >> >
>> >> > Right, the policy created by banned sockpuppets and IP editors. That's
>> >> > how effective that BADSITES strawman was, actual policy editors can't
>> >> > even go near any policy pages attempting to deal with outside
>> >> > harassment any more.
>> >>
>> >> What do you mean? David Gerard and others have had no problem
>> >> discussing this.
>> >
>> > Because no-one is going to accusing David of being a Communist, err,
>> > BADSITES supporter.
>>
>> Um, what? Is this some sort of claim that BADSITES proponents are being
>> Mcarthied? Forgive me if I don't see much evidence for that claim.
>
> I don't think you would be particularly sensitive to it, given your
> own feelings on the matter.

This amounts to an ad hominem attack. If there is evidence that this has
occurred then show it. Otherwise...

>> >> And frankly, who made a policy has nothing to do with whether or 
>> not it is a
>> >> good idea. Daniel Brandt could say "1+1=2" and the fact that it came from
>> >> Brandt would have nothing to do with whether or not the statement 
>> is true.
>> >
>> > It's a bad idea to have sockpuppets of banned editors writing our
>> > policies; that should be common sense, I would think.
>>
>> Yes, but if a user is banned happens to propose a kerner of a good idea
>> there's
>> no need to reject it based on the who it came from.
>
> But it wasn't proposing a kernel of a good idea, it was dozens of
> edits to create a policy.
>
>> (And point of fact PM is
>> not a sockpuppet of a banned user so...)
>
> User:BenB4 was, and he created the page, and was by far the single
> largest contributor to the page, so...
>
> As for PM, that's only a technicality; he was a sockpuppet, and only
> unbanned so he could participate in an ArbCom case about his banning.

Again, if it is a good idea so what?