[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[fredbaud at waterwiki.info]

-----Original Message-----
From: William Pietri [mailto:william at scissor.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 06:49 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

fredbaud at waterwiki.info wrote:
>> Fred, if you seriously think that's what I am disputing, then you have 
>> gravely misunderstood my position. I believe that goes for quite a 
>> number of people involved here as well.
>>
>> It's very frustrating to have spent hours carefully trying to explain my 
>> view, only to have it reduced to something that is a) obviously idiotic, 
>> and b) deeply antithetical to what I've been trying to do for the dozen 
>> years I've spent working on on-line community.
> That's not what you're disputing, but those who do want to trash other users and harm Wikipedia certainly work toward that goal. Once they destroy our capacity for self-defense and discredit advocates who oppose attacks on users, they will have an opportunity to engage in those activities.
>
> And why are they pissed? Usually because their eccentric point of view is minimized. The La Roachies are an excellent example.
>   

Yes, I agree there are crazy people out there. Yes, some of them are 
mean. Nobody reasonable disputes that. Nobody reasonable thinks that's 
good. We agree. I thought I had made that clear before, but apparently not.

As to the rest, I feel deeply frustrated.

By continually conflating the position of reasonable people who disagree 
with nut-jobs like LaRouche's people, you are cutting off any 
opportunity for reasonable discussion.

I don't know if you're intending to be infuriatingly insulting so you 
can win this one -- as my debater brother loved to do. Or if your 
well-meant passion on the topic has just blinded you so you tend to put 
everybody who disagrees with you in the same box with Daniel Brandt. Or 
maybe you have already processed our points, mentally argued them 
through, and dismissed them without giving us the courtesy of 
acknowledging that you've heard and understood what we are saying. I 
don't know.

However, I believe I've explained repeatedly why I think your approach, 
although well-intentioned, is not just a small problem, but a serious 
long-term threat to what makes Wikipedia a success. Since I've been 
using on-line communities for 25 years and have helped build a number of 
them, I feel like my opinion should not be dismissed out of hand. 
However, I feel like that's what you've done. Repeatedly. Certainly I've 
seen no sign that you have heard what I, or any of the other reasonable 
people opposing you in this, are saying.

So I regret that I can't figure out how to make this discussion work, 
but if I keep going my head will pop.

Sorry,

William


-- 
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri

_______________________________________________

And what position have I taken that you disagree with? That Slate should not be treated as an attack site or that it is not good to link to the particular article? Or that it is reasonable (and possible) to differentiate between the two situations?

Fred