[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

Thu Sep 20 15:35:49 UTC 2007

"Armed Blowfish" wrote

> On 20/09/2007, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Armed Blowfish" wrote
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TROLL
> >> This lists six different 'types' of trolling, encouraging people
> >> to call people who do those things trolls.

> > You know, it doesn't do that. It implicitly does the exact opposite,
> > and references [[Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals]], which
> > explicitly does the opposite.
> 
> It may not explicitly say 'You should call people trolls!' but it does
> provide material about what trolling supposedly is, which can be
> cited by those calling people trolls.

And how is WP supposed to handle its problem users, without that sort of discussion? Amongst the other Cassandras, there have (in the past) been those saying 'you realise WP will be over-run  by trolls?' Didn't happen. I don't think your argument is that strong. 

> As for WP:DNITV, the people who don't follow that are far more
> visible than the ones who do.

Tell me, why are you not criticising them, then? Why are you assuming that those who are outside the well-known policy lines are representative of ''official'' Wikipedia? We can both agree that those people are doing it wrong.

> >> An interesting one,
> >> 'Examples [of trolling] include continual nomination of articles
> >> for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that are obviously
> >> encyclopedic'
> >>
> >> Erm, many blatantly psychologically damaging articles in
> >> violation of BLP may be encyclopaedic.  So would those who
> >> support this essay consider those who try to get defamatory
> >> or otherwise damaging biographies deleted from Wikipaedia
> >> trolls?
> >
> > A biography should be _deleted_ if the subject fails the criteria for
> > inclusion in WP. It should be _radically edited_ if the content fails
> > BLP, or other criteria for content. These are two different things
> > entirely. You seem to be conflating them.
> 
> And what of the wishes of the subject? And what are the criteria for
> inclusion outside the main space?

You know what the 'wishes of the subject' count for. If say Robert Mugabe put a call through to St. Petersburg, Florida, objecting to inclusion in Wikipedia, you know what the reaction would be. The 'criteria for inclusion'are for the article space, as you also know. Simply shifting crabwise when you are called on these things doesn't help your cause.

> >> Another one:
> >> 'Some trolls are critical of the project, its policies, its users,
> >> its administration, or its goals. Often, this criticism comes in
> >> the form of accusations of cabals, ilks, or campaigns, that
> >> are typically invested in a particular POV, invested in
> >> maligning a specific user, and other similar claims.'
> >>
> >> So would those who agree with this paragraph consider
> >> criticism directed at Wikipaedia as a whole, and not at
> >> individual users, to be trolls?  I'm sure the more positive
> >> critics of Wikipaedia would be offended by that....
> >
> > As I have said, criticism of actions on WP is OK. Accusations
> > may not be OK, because they move from disagreeing with
> > what is done, to implications that go well beyond mistakes.
> > This need not make someone a 'troll': trolling is a kind of
> > systematic provocation.

> Individuals can be hurt more easily than whole organisations.
> Especially when talking in a forum where many of the people
> whose actions you are criticising are not able to respond, it
> may be better to criticise the whole organisation.  If the
> culture of the organisation encouraged the individual's actions
> anyway, the individual may not be entirely responsible anyway.
> If someone flays you, do you criticise the whip, the hand, the
> whipper, or the person who ordered the whipping?  Certainly
> not the whip - it has no control over its actions.  Nor the hand,
> which was simply acting mechanically on the nerve impulses
> of the brain.  The whipper is him or her self merely a hand to
> whomever ordered it.  Sure, he or she could say no, but some
> one else would step in to take his or her place.  The one who
> ordered it, though, that person is responsible.

Well, you appear to be saying that the culture encourages the things it explicitly discourages. This may seem a powerful sort of unmasking to you. It is also commonly known as "trying to have your cake and eat it".

> [snip]
> >> It isn't though.  Your average Recent Changes patroller,
> >> constantly looking to revert damaging edits, may be hasty
> >> to call anything that looks bad vandalism.  And don't almost
> >> all the standard warnings (uw2 and up) encourage this, by
> >> including the term vandalism?
> >
> > Your way of putting it (what is uw2?) makes it clear that you
> > know enough about WP, to know also that the text in templates
> > is editable. Have you tried to get the text changed? This is a
> > sofixit - if there is a problem in your view, there is also a route
> > for debating and dealing with it, namely through the discussion
> > page for any template you think is objectionable.
> 
> Clicking on 'edit this page' brings up the following in big bold
> letters:
> 
> 'Block warning: You can read pages, but your account is blocked
> from editing and changing them.'
> 
> So much for that theory.
> 
> This is uw2:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-test2
> 
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VAND#Types_of_vandalism
> >> This has a whole list of circumstances where you are
> >> encouraged to assume that someone is trying to deface
> >> Wikipaedia!
> >
> > Well, in fairness, you could also reference the next section at
> > WP:VAND where numerous things, including newbie tests, are
> > described as not vandalism. That page also references the
> > essay [[Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal"]]. So I fear you are
> > shifting ground here. Where exactly is the incitement to call
> > someone a vandal?
> 
> By saying that certain types of actions are or tend to be the
> result of a desire to hurt Wikipaedia, it discourages consideration
> that most people are more complex than that.
> 
> Oh look, an entire page dedicated to calling people vandals!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
> 
> Also see the Administrators' Noticeboards....

Really, what exactly is your point? That WP is not perfect, which is a perfectly reasonable point, or that it has no redeeming features, since everything put in place to allow amelioration and fair criticism and sensible policy enforcement in a transparent way somehow doesn't count?

<snip>

> > We have to deal with COI. Since I have worked on the policy, I
> > have a fairly clear idea of what it consists of. There is nothing
> > at all - nothing - at WP:COI which justifies linking having such a
> > policy with stalking. You demean yourself my making such a
> > connection.

> 1.  What policy says and what is done are not the same.
> 2.  There have been complaints by people who feel outed
>      by enforcers of that policy.
> 3.  Someone connected to the outing of a Wikipaedia admin
>      cited the need to prove a conflict of interest as a reason
>      for outing.

As you know, outing people on the site is fundamentally against policy. Everyone should read the COI guideline, of course. It doesn't in any way suggest that investigative work is the right way ahead. In fact one reason it is a guideline is because implementation as a policy would bring just these dangers.

> Perhaps you should consider other ways of keeping the articles
> neutral-ish.

There are plenty of ways of enforcing NPOV. The COI guideline is mainly _advice_ not to get into a false position over COI. 

> >> AGF is an interesting one.
> >>
> >> 'Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume
> >> that people who work on the project are trying to help it,
> >> not hurt it.'
> >>
> >> If good faith is defined as an attempt to help the
> >> encyclopaedia, is WP:AGF encouraging Wikipaedians to
> >> consider motivations which have absolutely nothing to do
> >> with Wikipaedia 'bad'?  Or is this a Wikipaedia-centric
> >> world view?  The world is not black and white, and not
> >> everything is about hurting Wikipaedia or helping it.
> >
> > No, that is really a kind of smear on WP. It is a voluntary
> > organization, and anyone can turn up to work on it. The baseline
> > assumption in AGF is that volunteers are there to help, and are
> > not (for example) propagandists or entryists of some sort.

> Not anyone... for starters, not the Chinese.
> 
> 'There to help' ... who or what?
> 
> Certainly, everyone wants to help someone or something, probably
> multiple someones or somethings.  The questions is not whether,
> but who or what?

This is becoming a tiresome dialectical exchange. You are not actually refuting my description of AGF, you are dragging red herrings across it.

> >> And in big bold letters:
> >> 'This guideline does not require that editors continue to
> >> assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the
> >> contrary.'
> >>
> >> Erm, when else would the guideline be useful?  So if
> >> someone does a few bad things, that person is suddenly
> >> a horrible horrible person who deserves to be defamed
> >> on top of Google?  Well, that includes everyone except
> >> the children....
> >>
> >> Or, you could join the School of Humanism, and accept
> >> that the world is not black and white, and people are a
> >> mixture of good and bad!
> >
> > Actually it means all sorts of things you miss. But making a
> > few mistakes under policy is not 'evidence' applicable to
> > revoking the assumption of AGF.

> The assumption that you are a human being, a mixture of
> good and bad, who feels and laughs and cries, is never
> revoked unless you fail the Turing test.

Tell you what, one of the indicators of a human at the far end of a Turing test would be to say "this is pointless - just being able to answer everything isn't a sign of having anything to say".

<snip>

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam