Those apply to article content, not my entire life. I
didn't sign up for the First Church of Wikipedia.
steve v vertigosteve at yahoo.com:
How is the demonization of any particular group
encyclopedic? Or NPOV?
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> The N in NPOV doesn't stand for No, it stands for Nuetral. Every article
> has
> a POV, and many articles contain moral judgement without violating NPOV.
True... but the N doesn't stand for Nazi, either... keep that in mind.
As a Jewish person, I don't like Naziism one bit. I do recognize that
Nazis are folks like you and me. Nonetheless, my distaste for Naziism is
not the reason that I advocate keeping a close watch on Nazis for
Wikipedia. I advocate this because they have vowed to make POV edits to
Wikipedia, and such edits are contrary to Wikipedia rules. If a Nazi
should pop up, we should watch them closely and ban them when they start
fouling our stream of knowledge with biased, worthless tripe (if they do).
Intrinsic and irreversible traits being the subject of persecution,
when seen as a general observation on how this dynamic plays in
inter-editorial interactions, is obviously subject to degrees of ...
shall we say, dedicated fanaticism and corresponding expressions of
hate. Focus; context. The irony, though, is that in some cases it is
*that* clear, and this *was* such a case (i.e. the author of and
targets mentioned on The Hit-List, its announcement, its tone and
overtone, etc.) Bottom line: there was overt behaviour. Appearences
aside, it is, at the very least, overlysimplistic and superficial to
title the reaction to the Hit-List as "jovial." Who is trolling whom
is not so elusive.
El_C
We're not here to get insight from interactions with
Nazis or anyone else, we're here to write an
encyclopedia. If we need insight about Nazis to
improve Wikipedia articles, then we should get it from
the many, many published works about Nazis and not
from having chats with them (which would be original
research anyway).
We're not here to convert Nazis to sanity with
Wikilove either. While I admire anyone stubborn and
capable enough to try to save a racist, that's simply
not our job.
We're here to write Nazis should be banned not just
because they are a particularly nasty form of human
virus, but because they will inevitably interfere with
our goals. They will waste the time of editors who
must undo their vandalism, argue with them, explain
the rules, do research to refute their crackpot
nonsense, etc., etc. We're here to write accurate,
NPOV encyclopedia articles, and anyone who interferes
with that goal should be booted, including Nazis,
vandals, trolls, social experimenters, and Anonymoose.
Michael Turley michael.turley at gmail.com:
As much as we dislike their views, it is likely that
Nazis and neo-Nazis will give us better insight into
their own views, and improve the articles related to
those viewpoints.
Geoff Burling llywrch at agora.rdrop.com:
What's the best that can happen? Maybe this Neo-Nazi
isn't as firm in his beliefs as he might think -- or
simply has never been exposed to other people
different from him -- & his experience on Wikipedia
convinces him to abandon these beliefs.
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Greetings, WikiEN-l,
My point then (and so it remains now) was centred on what I termed
intrinsic/irreversible properties, the distinction between the
inherent and inherited. The latter says: you may be sub-human now, but
you can convert to what I believe in and then be human, just-like-me.
The former says: you will *always* be sub-human, as an intrinsic trait
that cannot be reversed, you can't be just-like-me, ever.
There is an alarming tendency on the part of some participants in this
thread, I find; I will go further, a seemingly heartless and ugly
current, whose basis is intellectual lazyness at best, and an utterly
corrupt and morally bankrupt mindset at worse. The so-called moral
high ground of un-"principled" relativism. But before I'm banned from
the list on account of flaming (which I nonetheless am taking pains to
direct with a measure of moderation, though ambiguities will not save
me), I'll pause for a personal example from Wikipedia:
About two months ago or so I encountered an abusive editor who refused
to speak to me because, as he told me, and then all of WP:AN in a
notice he authored, that he does not, as a matter of principle, speaks
to homosexuals (at the event, I never made privy to him whether I was
even male or female to begin with, I was only reverting, warning, and
eventually banning him for homophobic hate speech on [[Iran]] -- the
user was defending the Islamic regime's policy on homosexuality and a
certain infamous execution of underage homosexuals in a very prolific
fashion, but I digress).
The user explained that he considers homosexuals, and later he added,
also Jews, to be lower than animals or something to that effect, etc.,
noting how he would "love to rid the world of gays and Jews."
Now, there was a certain vocal user, an established user, a user with
thousands of edits, who insisted that my actions were contrary to
policy and that I should have attempted to resolve my *differences*
with that abusive user (well, his proxies, since at that point he was
propogating his hate speech via block evasion) through the dispute
resolution process. This is what I'm talking about, and of course this
exchange led to a whole lotta (wiki and otherwise) love!
Anyway, I do not look forward to the (further ensuing?)
agenda-driven(?), moral abstractions about preemptive banning and how
SlimVirgin's ban amounted to nothing but that; insinuations on her
purported 'selectiveness,' and on how terribly unfair this whole
ordeal was to this neo-Nazi and his (surprise-sururpise, who would
have guessed it) accompanying *hit list* (ah, yes, but this hit list,
unlike some others that I, myself, had been subjected to on Wikipedia,
did take place offsite, though I would still argue, within the realm
of the known universe). Someone get the poor fellow a worthy and
so-called 'righteous' advocate(?). And most of all, I am not looking
forward to the flames, but I sure do expect them after having said all
that (which nevertheless, isn't actually so much). Alas, I do confess
to being mildly curious in seeing how subtle and/or decisive they
get...
*Though*, you can always shower me with love, instead. It is within
your power and even the realm of possibility. Please shower me with
your love. Let it shine, shine, shine. Let it shine.
Love,
El_C
After Jimbo's comments on the National Gallery's policy to images of
paintings in their collection, I thought we should all vote in this
poll (for BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme).
The page shows some images from the The National Gallery.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/greatestpainting/index_vote_secure.s…
"The Greatest Painting in Britain is in association with The National Gallery"
Remember. One vote each - and no more!
:-)
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///
I just renamed user:음낭 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%EC%9D%8C%EB%82%AD> to user:Eum Nang <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eum_Nang> . Where do I go to check whether I did this correctly? Is there a Bureaucrats Chat page, or something?
My first reason is that Scrotum in Korean is Eum Nang. My second reason is that, aside from me and a handful of others here at the English Wikipedia, no one can read that username.
Ed Poor
I second your petition in the strongest way possible Haukur.
I have no interest whatsoever in User:Amalekite, but I have a problem
with him/her being banned. If the measure of the progress of a country
is how well the people on the fringes of society are treated then the
same goes for Wikipedia.
David said Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy, just an
encyclopaedia. But is WP just an encyclopaedia? Isn't it a very
special and unique encyclopaedia that is the first to try to span all
state borders and all languages by coming but to the cornerstone:
NPOV. So perhaps not democracy, but I think Wikipedia is a social
experiment of some kind and not just a resource. WP is special because
of the actual manner in which we are building the resource. Let's not
ignore that.
Considering WP has potential to beat any other resource on issue of
**neutrality** let's not do anything to compromise this. Let's not ban
a user just because of his/her opinions! That's introducing bias
straightaway. Let's ban the user if and when he or she actually *does*
something wrong, not for having beliefs we don't like!! (If I write
something opinionated and not generally accepted on another site I
don't want it to affect my "user ban case" on Wikipedia!)
Again this is not about one particular user, it's about how we deal
with all cases like this. I don't care that User:Amalekite is
apparently a neo-nazi. This is just a label and is unhelpful. A user's
actions, ie. edits, are the important thing here.
Lisa
> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:40:20 -0000 (GMT)
> From: Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
>
> > It's not easy to do this all the while knowing that the editor (in
> > this case) personally believes that his Jewish Wikipedian colleagues
> > are sub-human.
>
> I can only hope it's good exercise for the spirit.
>
>
> > Amalekite represents a tiny minority of nutcases who believe that
> > certain ethnic groups and races are not fully human and do not deserve
> > to live.
>
> I believe this is a minority view, even within the racist movement. Other
> parts of the racism spectrum are, I fear, rather more common. Common
> enough to form a significant minority view in some cases. Exactly where on
> the spectrum User:Amalekite dwells I do not know but he did not seem to be
> pushing the idea that certain ethnic groups do not deserve to live.
>
> I petition you: Lift your ban on the user. If he returns to editing (which
> I think is fairly unlikely) I'll undertake to babysit him and if he breaks
> any rules I'll immediately take the appropriate action.
>
> Regards,
> Haukur
Will do; I hope you can make sense of the headers, because I sure can't. ;)
--Ryan
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:29:05 -0400
> From: Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] For the love of wheels, why?!
>
> If you forwarded me the message, and pasted me the headers into it, I
> could confirm if it is faked or not. I'd say they're related.
>
> On 8/24/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki(a)earthling.net> wrote:
> > Last night my userpage was attacked by the one and only Willy on
> > Wheels... or should I say William on Discs? First, I'd like to
> > thank Meelar for getting that straightened out. Second, I
> > received a strange email around the same time. The email seems
> > most definitely faked: gjspace (at) gjspace (dot) com.
> > GJSpace.com is similar to MySpace, except for the fact that it's
> > cool, and doesn't suck so bad; it's run by GreatestJournal, so I
> > have a GJSpace account.
> >
> > Anyway, I've got my userpage linked from my GJSpace profile, and
> > the text of the weird email was:
> >
> > "You [sic] site is sooo damn insecure it makes me laugh, AH-HAHAHA!!"
> >
> > I'm guessing that "insecure" refers to the "Edit this page"
> > button. Could this be related to the WoW incident?
> >
> > --Ryan
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm