[WikiEN-l] The more I think about my ban from Wikipedia, the more I realize how wrong it was.

[Marc Riddell]

> Monahon, Peter B. wrote:
>> [We each respond in our own time cycles - I don't read the list by the
>> hour, more by the day or week.  If you've had enough thoughts on this,
>> please scroll on!  Otherwise ... this is more about Wikipedia banning,
>> not this list, and I try to remove any personal references.  Here are my
>> thoughts ... 1,388 words:]

>> on 9/6/07 2:06 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:

> Indeed. I don't participate on IRC because it is not an atmosphere
> conducive to taking time to think about what one is saying, or sometimes
> to looking something up to back up what one is saying.
>>> Earlier: "... As is it if you know how [so-and-so] acts on IRC ...
>>> 
>> Many ops suspect that [they] did a few of the bot attacks on #wikipedia.
>> (Maybe just suspicion, but nevertheless, it's suspicious.) ..."
>> 
>> Great - ban someone on Wikipedia because of their (suspected) actions
>> OFF Wikipedia!
>> 
>> And the logic is ...?
>> 
>> We're building an incentive for admins to spend their time looking for
>> people to ban, and look even harder by looking OFF Wikipedia to invent
>> reasons to ban them.
>> 
>> We are incentivizing building a Wikipedia Secret Police!
>> 
>> We should be incentivizing building a Wikipedia community, building an
>> encyclopedia!
>> 
>> Does anyone have any ideas how to incorporate ALL our members into the
>> Wikipedia community?
>> 
> Hell no! If you did that there's a serious risk that these people might
> want something different from the comfort of the present. ;-)
>>> Earlier: "... If ... the mailing list becomes disagreeable to the
>>> 
>> majority of its active users ... to the point that they leave and go
>> elsewhere, what has been gained? ..."
>> 
>> What's been gained?
>> 
>> People taking responsibility for themselves!
>> 
> That problem extends far beyond our wiki borders.
>> ... rather than abdicating their responsibilities to a moderator to
>> second-guess for them and make life supposedly easier for them - read:
>> sterilized!
>> 
>> Banning and deleting are not the only ways to "moderate" a list, or
>> Wikipedia.  Why not dive in, moderate, set an example, and inspire BOTH
>> sides to play well together more effectively?
>> 
> People raise their children differently these days. Over protect a child
> and you end up with a child unable to protect himself. Parents who try
> too hard to provide online protection don't understand the problems
> unless they have had considerable online time themselves. This results
> in a lot of confused kids ready to pass on the confusion to the next
> generation.
>>> Earlier: "... [they] had two accounts ... [they] used one to recommend
>>> 
>> the other be unblocked without making it clear you controlled both.
>> That's abusive use of sockpuppets, and the blocks are valid ..."
>> 
>> Oh, puleeze!
>> 
> One does need to distinguish between the use of sockpuppets and the
> abusive use of sockpuppets. Making the claim of "abusive" does not make
> it so.
>>> Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
>>> 
>> Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear
>> ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."
>> 
>> Ditto.  Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list.  I'm even
>> maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who banned
>> me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was
>> one!
>> 
> FYI: It's [[Koan]] rather than "Cohan". I doubt that the Buddhists would
> have been big advocates of Yankee-Doodle Dandyism. :-)
> 
> The most disturbing thing about that exchange was that the person
> proposing a more open distribution of information understood the nature
> of privacy and confidence, while at least one opponent did not believe
> that the discussion could move forward unless these trusts were broken.
>>> Earlier: "... Dialogue is crucial; I personally would like to engage
>>> 
>> those who fear they will be moderated, because I cannot think of a
>> reason they would fear that ..."
>> 
>> Here's a reason: at least because people get banned from one place for
>> their actions elsewhere!  So, if Wikipedia had a no-banning policy, all
>> this noise and destructiveness would come to a grinding halt, and ALL
>> venues would open up to be more effective vehicles for community
>> integration!  Really.  It works.  Freedom, though messy, is contagious,
>> and is way easier and more inclusive in the long run than the
>> alternative.
>> 
> "Fear of moderation," to mention only one such fear, reflects a kind of
> zeitgeist. So does a fear that the terrorists are out to destroy our way
> of life. Rational analysis is only acceptable if it supports fear mongering.
> 
> These fear may be irrational, but they exist. People don't want the
> hassle; they prefer being overly compliant because life's easier and
> more convenient that way. They prefer putting themselves at a
> disadvantage, because even the risk of the most unlikely consequences is
> too much to take.
> 
> ³A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.² - Edward R. Murrow.
>>> Earlier: "... engaged in behavior that should result in [their]
>>> 
>> moderation? What exactly is that behavior? ..."
>> 
>> What behavior warrants moderation?  Let's keep it simple: spam and
>> vandals only.
>> 
>> Otherwise, let the readers do their own editing, deleting, and
>> scrolling-on.
>> 
>> Simple, no?
> Seems simple enough for me.
> 
Yes, simplicity itself.

I would just like to add an additional thought to this thread (which could
also apply to the "moderation" one):

In 60s Berkeley, it was not a war that began all of the fuss on campus; nor
was it People's Park. The various student groups and organizations, as had
been tradition, maintained and manned folding tables in an open area of the
campus where we distributed literature and announcements of meetings. The
administration decided that a couple of the groups were distributing
"disturbing and unnecessarily controversial" materials which "was not
relevant to the purpose or mission of the university". All hell broke loose.
We were asking for more openness: the freedom to speak - as well as the
freedom to know. And who were we fighting? A paternalistic, "trust us, we
know what's best for you" administration. It takes just one voice to start a
protest - but many to bring about change.

As far as my dialogues on this List: I make it a point never to argue with a
ideologue. It's like a ship arguing with an iceberg. Instead, I merely
change course and go in a different & wiser direction. In time the sun will
take care of it.

Marc