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

[Marc Riddell]

on 9/6/07 5:44 PM, John Lee at johnleemk at gmail.com wrote:

> On 9/7/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> [[WP:NOT]] - Wikipedia is not a democracy, not a soapbox, etc. The mailing
> list is significantly looser, but we do expect discussions to be at least
> somehow related to Wikipedia, as a bare minimum. Not disrupting discussions
> about Wikipedia is a secondary concern, one we're not particularly eager to
> tackle unless it's clear the list is reacting very unhealthily to it (to the
> point that the mods and the list are both receiving several complaints).
> 
> I don't understand this fetish people have for comparing Wikipedia to a
> democracy. We're an encyclopaedia-writing project; our models should be
> non-profits and not governments. We have significantly more leeway because
> we operate on the internet (I have my doubts about the efficacy of the wiki
> model when applied to, say, Red Cross work), but ultimately we are a project
> to write an encyclopaedia. Those advocating an organisational or governance
> model abstracted directly from a national government should explain why this
> is a relevant model to adopt.
> 
> As I said, Marc, you are making philosophical points; you are not addressing
> the concrete issues in any way (perhaps because as you admit, you prefer to
> ignore them and take your own tack). Can you present an example of where
> we've had to moderate someone with ultimately negative effects for the
> project directly because of this?
> 
> I can appreciate the need for absolute or near-absolute freedom of speech; I
> am an advocate of it politically in my own country. But in a project, as you
> yourself have said in the past, some leadership, some guidance, some fella
> who ultimately has the authority to say "take it or leave it", is required.
> Even parliaments need someone to preside over their proceedings; the model
> we use for this mailing list is thus actually far more open because everyone
> has the floor - only those on moderation need permission to speak.
> 
> Since this has now progressed into a philosophical debate, if there is no
> further concrete issue that needs resolution, I think I have said more than
> my fair share.
> 
> Johnleemk

And the administrators said: "This is a university; how we treat the
students is irrelevant to its mission".

Marc