On Nov 27, 2007 4:31 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 1:34 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Are you suggesting that, like bigfoot, the claims that Wikipedians have been harassed by WR members are mythical?
Jay, read the thread, and the workshop on RfAr. 'Believing in Bigfoot' here and there doesn't mean 'believing in harassment', it means 'believing that a dozen banned users will be successful in subverting the entire project because of their brilliance and the fact that most editors do not believe in constant vigilance.'
Who believes that?
Why reduce it to personalities? If I quote Guy to you from earlier, will it make you any happier?
Yes. And more importantly, it will help cut through some of the vague hand-waving rhetoric.
Try and resolve the problem, Jay.
I am. One big problem on this thread are accusations without any specifics. I'm asking for specifics.
I pointed out that if Durova says she got enthusiastic support following her circulation of the evidence, and Matthew and Guy say there was no support for a block, or even a proposal on Wikia, the only way to reconcile those statements is to assume some other form of contact.
Of course that isn't the only way to reconcile those statements. I can think of at least four other ways of reconciling them.
Do share them. It might help us.
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the people who have commented might have said something in error? That they might believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
And the only thing Wikipedia can do about it is to say that it is a bad thing to not run your ideas by genuine examination, from people who have different perspectives from you. I am yet to see anyone on this thread arguing for that.
Why would you imagine people on the list *didn't* have different perspectives than Durova? You don't even know who is on it.
Do they, Jay?
Well, again, let's do a little thought experiment. If what I've read is correct, there are apparently over two dozen people on the list. They undoubtedly are of all different ages and nationalities and ethnicities, have different political, religious views, life experiences etc. than Durova. Hmm, so would they have different perspectives than Durova or not?
You don't think discussing ways of identifying "them" on a list set up precisely because of what "they" have done is sharing things with people who have a different view of the problem?
The list was set up to deal with cyberstalking; it seems extremely unlikely to me that everyone on the list has been cyberstalked by the same individuals, or had the same experiences when they were stalked.
Jay, nobody objected to her conclusions in the email she sent. That is worrying enough.
Can I assume, then, that you take responsibility for and support all content on wikien-l that you don't explicitly object to?
Do you think that that email, sent to wikien-l, would have been allowed to pass unmentioned?
I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff on wikien-l; in any event, there are obviously far more eyes on wikien-l than the people on this other list. A number of people have stated publicly that they didn't read the e-mail, or merely glanced at it without looking at the detail. Is that now some sort of moral failing on their part?
Um, why then are people like Alec insisting that they must known the names of the individuals who "approved" !!'s blocking? And what "processes" are you talking about?
The processes involved in reviewing blocks. The processes involved in analysing information before those blocks are made.
Um, Matthew and Guy said the exact opposite, that Durova didn't propose a block. As far as I can tell these are imaginary "processes". Imaginary processes don't need fixing.