[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Brock Weller]

Oh good fucking lord. This isn't a battle for the community or any
sort of thing. The badsites people look at it as a way to protect
editors without harming any actual debate. And they're right. None of
there sites matter as a matter of course to the pedia. The other side
views it as a way to reduce openness. Both are right and most of us
just want the whole damn thing to go away. None of this matters.
Either way it's a minor decision. No one should be this worked up over
it. Go take a damn wiki break.

On 9/18/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2007 at 03:38:18 +0000, fredbaud at waterwiki.info wrote:
>
> > Now, I'm not kidding...
> >
> > What are the major issues?
>
> Have you read the workshop and evidence pages, and their talk pages?
> The issues have been debated heavily there.
>
> The way I see it, it's a debate about the basic nature of the
> Wikipedia community...  Are we going to be a free and open community
> unafraid of exploring, researching, and discussing every issue
> including criticism of ourselves, or are we going to bury our heads
> in the sand and be afraid of our own shadows?  Are we able to take in
> good stride the broad spectrum of opinion about Wikipedia itself as
> well as every other subject, or are we a mind-control cult that
> excommunicates people it doesn't like and declares them unpersons, in
> order to kill the messenger who brings ideas distasteful to some of
> us?  Are we a community based on consensus hashed out in free-
> spirited discussion, or a repressed and secretive group with a rigid
> hierarchy and lots of landmines and third-rails in the form of taboo
> topics for discussion?
>
> Unfortunately, your proposed findings in this case don't give me much
> hope for an outcome that won't lead me to lose interest in
> participating in and supporting Wikipedia.  Your "Salt the Earth"
> remedy is utterly repugnant to the spirit of what Wikipedia aspires
> to be.  Your idea of banning all references to "the attack site"
> without actually saying what site you're talking about is downright
> Kafkaesque.  And your statement that "the community may not override
> a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks" is
> absolutely and utterly wrongheaded.  NPA is definitely *not* a
> foundation issue; see
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
>
> NPA isn't there.  NPOV is, and that's a principle that many say
> contradicts the imposition of any absolutist link/reference bans.
>
> Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law
> against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional
> principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the
> legislature or referendum; that's simply false.  NPA is a policy
> adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked,
> altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long
> as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


-- 
-Brock