[Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Rui Correia]

Hi David

Great post! Reminds me of something I saw last night on Russia Today,
Keiser Report about JPMorgan and co. They always win, no matter what. And
you've just hit the nail on the head.

But that goes as far as RD goes, which is one issue. Your way of doing it
adequately solves those unpleasant encounters. The other issue
unfortunately is that the project is being infiltrated by corporates being
paid to edit. In this instance, I have been able to collect enough evidence
to make a case that one of more editors are here to do nothing else but
ensure good press for Microsoft. But apparently 'outing' is a cardinal sin
and the most unviolable of violations.

So, I'll take your advice and will go work on other issues - not
necessarily WP, I think I'll give this a wide berth for a while.

Good one! Keep it up.

Regards,

Rui


On 8 September 2013 23:16, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com> wrote:

> All live societies have conflict.   WP, with perhaps the greatest personal
> and social diversity of any organization, will inevitably have quite a bit
> of it.  All societies also have some form of dispute resolution. In all
> societies, the purpose  of dispute resolution is to resolve disputes, not
> necessarily to bring about Justice. In practice, the effect is almost
> always  to resolve disputes by reinforcing the structure of the established
> society against dissidents and mavericks.  A DR process sponsored and
> controlled by the central organization using professionals, will do this
> effectively--that is, they will effectively support the existing power
> structure and the people in positions of authority. If they are clever,
> they will manage to reconcile as many dissidents as possible with the
> overall structure, without being too harsh on them. But if they are to be
> effective, they must also deal with those who wish to subvert the structure
> of the society, though a sophisticated process can also do this relatively
> gently.
>
> The centralizing tendencies of WP are already very great--in some cases too
> great to permit the users to have the necessary flexibility and
> independence to remain creative. The effect of multiple layers of appeal
> can be to correct some injustices, but it can also more effectively
> suppress individualism, by diverting direct conflicts into bureaucratic
> channels & exhausting the participants with elaborate procedure.  People
> may wish an arrangement to correct injustice against them--but what if the
> result is to decide for their opponents? At least in the enWP, I advise
> people against using any level or variant of formal DR if there is any
> alternative: if you bring  a case for decision, you may permanently lose;
> if you avoid formal process, you can keep trying.  Those people who have
> asked me for advice and gone to arb com or AN/I or other process against my
> invariable advice not to, have always been the worse for it.  The better
> remedy for losing a particular argument on an issue is to work on other
> issues. The better remedy for pervasive injustice is to organize
> opposition.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > привет Ð¯Ñ€Ð¾Ñ Ð»Ð°Ð²,
> > >
> > > Yes, I am very serious. I was though only arguing about the members of
> > > this instance, be it an 'arbitration committe' or an ombudsman or
> > > whatever, with the duty to protect users from mobbing and abuses in the
> > > Wikis.
> > >
> > > We must though be aware that there are very different countries in the
> > > world. What is possible in one part of the world is not possible in
> > > another. I am aware of the present situation in Russia and pity the
> > > Russians. I think the Wikis should at least reflect the society they
> are
> > > working in, not be worse, and it could be difficult to be better (I am
> > > still just talking about stopping mobbing and abuses in the Wikis).
> > >
> > > I am certain that a committe could help against mobbing in Wikis even
> in
> > > Russia and in other countries with similar kind of problems. You could
> > > though perhaps, for reason that you express, not get any help from the
> > > outside society. If the members of such a committe would have any
> > > problems with the authorities or hooligans in such a country I don't
> > > know, but that could be an argument for placing it outside Russia (and
> > > other countries). Perhaps even just have one international instance.
> > >
> > > Let me tell you a little about my own experiences to explain what I
> > > wrote. In my country we have a lot of ombudsmen to protect citizens
> from
> > > child abuse, harassment of immigrants and a lot of other things. The
> > > persons working with these questions are very public, you can find
> their
> > > names, photos etc. on the web. I have had a lot of contacts with these
> > > people during the last year. I have never heard of one single instance
> > > when they have been attacked, harassed or anything else. That is quite
> > > natural, I think, they have the protection of the surrounding society.
> If
> > > someone harassed or abused them, he/she be sued or arrested.
> > >
> > > The situation is the same for people working against mobbing in schools
> > > and companies. They are of course also public persons. Still I have
> never
> > > heard of anyone being attacked. The reason is the same as above. If
> these
> > > persons were anonymous it would partly look very stupid and partly they
> > > could not do their job properly.
> > >
> > > I do not see any reason why the situation wouldn't be the same for such
> > > an instance in the Wikis. As I said above the persons must be
> > > professional and hired by the Wikis, to get the right authority and
> > > respect. Where they are placed physically is not so important since
> there
> > > role is only to act within the Wikis (not in the society), perhaps one
> > > shouldn't choose Russia though.
> > >
> > > I really think that it also has a psychological role not to be
> anonymous.
> > > The method of mobbers and extreme political movements is to dehumanize
> > > it's opponents. They put a label on their enemies to make them not
> human.
> > > I think being anonymous works in the same direction. It deprives you of
> > > your identity and thus makes you easier to attack.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Lars Gardenius
> >
> > Indeed; however, a number of other strategies are also used to dominate.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________