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@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