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

[Armed Blowfish]

On 06/09/07, John Lee <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?

Dunno about moderation, but a number of people
banned on Wikipaedia have, in their pain, gone
to form or join websites which sometimes attack,
or at least cause pain to, individual Wikipaedians.
Or do you all not care about the pain of the
individual Wikipaedians any more than you care
about the pain of the banned users?

Y'all ought to, if not for morality then at least for
your own safety.  'We must all hang together, or
assuredly we shall all hang separately.'

I'm working on a statistical study....

> 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