>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:14 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy
>
>John Lee wrote:
>
>>I think the Arbcom should clarify their decision to say that "attack sites"
>>refers to sites composed of nothing but attacks - Brandt's Hive Mind site is
>>probably a good example - and not just sites which contain attacks but also
>>contain other content.
>>
>Not at all!! Judges do not revisit their past decisions unless there is
>a clear error. Any case is decided on the basis of specific facts. To
>go back now to change the ruling would only strenghthen the notion that
>Arbcom rulings form legal precedents. I don't know if we are ready for
>that.
>
>Ec
You can ask for clarification at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification
I think what you will be told is that the language applies only to the site involved in the MONGO case. However there is a general principle which lies behind Wikipedia:No personal attacks that we should protect our users from harassment, in a common sense way.
Fred
Anecdotally: I was down the pub tonight talking to regular humans who
aren't Wikipedians about the vexed minor living bio issue. Like, they
use it and know what it is and how it works and that it's written by
nerds with too much time and so forth, but aren't regulars in any way.
And I think our hardline policy on BLPs is absolutely what the world
would want. The incidents themselves have to be *notable*, not just
verifiable. A carefully researched piece of footnoted crusading
journalism may be noble, but it's NOT Wikipedia. Having an article in
someone's name is a curse, because our page rank puts it straight at
the top of Google. Etc.
They all got this, immediately. In just the way the people on wiki
being querulous about BLPs don't.
I mean, I don't know if we can give Doc glasgow a medal for dealing
with this rubbish so well on a continuing basis, but we should see if
there's a way to.
- d.
On 28 May 2007 at 11:54:57 -0500, "Slim Virgin"
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> John, I don't think anyone is arguing that extreme position. It's a
> strawman. The whole BADSITES policy proposal was a strawman started by
> a sockpocket. All that's being argued is that sites *devoted* to
> outing and defamation -- the purpose-built attackers, where it's all
> or most of what they do -- shouldn't be linked to.
And referring to sites like that is itself pretty close to being a
straw man, given that very few sites actually exist that strictly fit
that description. Daniel Brandt's Hive Mind, perhaps, but even that
was only part of his site (and has subsequently been taken down). The
other sites that generally come up in these debates are definitely
*not* devoted solely to outing and defamation; they have critical
commentary, much of it crude and obnoxious, but "outing" individual
editors is far from their primary focus. And other sites the policy
has also been applied to, like the science fiction editor's site
that's the subject of the latest controversy, has such activity only
as a very minor sidelight to its major activities which have resulted
in many pages that are considered reliable sources for a variety of
Wikipedia articles.
--
== 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/
On 28 May 2007 at 17:28:38 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 28/05/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
>
> > But, then, I've also developed some doubts about your own judgment
> > given your activity on this list last week, when you developed out of
> > whole cloth an entirely bizarre interpretation of [[WP:BLP]] that
> > held that this policy could be used as a Harry-Potter-esque magical
> > incantation by any admin in order to take unilateral action that
> > would not be permitted to be questioned, debated, reversed, or
> > subjected to any sort of process or consensus save the unlikely
> > possibility of a full-blown ArbCom case. The fact that nothing in
> > the actual wording of the policy itself even hinted at this
> > interpretation didn't faze you one bit, though you later backed down
> > after a storm of controversy here.
>
> What on earth? It's been practice since WP:BLP was instituted.
Not that I've observed. There have been plenty of cases of admins
making changes or deletions to an article under BLP concerns which
have resulted in subsequent review, debate, modification, and
reversal without the ArbCom acting.
The way Fred originally put it, it would be possible for some admin
to wake up deciding that he didn't like Britney Spears and didn't
think she should have an article on Wikipedia, and then just go and
speedy-delete it, giving "BLP" as the magic word (does a wand need to
be waved along with this?); then, no discussion, debate, DRV, AFD, or
other questioning would be permitted, no other admin (or even all
other admins acting in concert) would be allowed to reverse the
action on penalty of desysopping, and only an ArbCom case would be
able to reverse it (even though the ArbCom says they don't get
involved in content disputes).
--
== 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/
Thanks for the heads-up. Bottom line, this guy doesn't get it. How hurtful external attacks can be to Wikipedia users. He has minimal commitment to taking effective action, maximum commitment to dissimulation.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 07:31 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on
>
>Another thing in the subject of the BADSITES controversy, take a look
>at this Request for Adminship:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenot
>es
>
>(not to be confused with [[User:Grace Note]], a totally separate
>person, and one who actually is one of the opposers in the above
>nomination; interestingly, though "Grace" is usually a girl's name,
>they're both guys, which shows you can never reliably infer gender
>from usernames)
>
>This user has been the subject of a massive piling-on of oppose
>votes, most of them coming simply because he refuses to take a
>totally politically correct position favoring the draconian, zero-
>tolerance policy on removing links to so-called "attack sites".
>
>Despite (or maybe because of) this, he's also got more support votes
>than any other current RfA (it's currently 161 to 60, meaning that
>101 more people support him than oppose him), but this might not be a
>high enough percentage to satisfy whoever closes the RfA (is there a
>set percentage, or is it just up to a subjective value judgment like
>most other debate-closing on Wikipedia?)
>
>There are some people in the Support column who are notable for
>saying that they oppose him on the attack-sites issue but still don't
>consider it a "litmus test" that bars their support for him (after
>all, having administrator's tools has little or no connection with
>one's beliefs or actions regarding attack-site links... adding,
>dropping, restoring, and edit-warring over such links does not
>require admin powers). However, a bunch of others seem to be single-
>issue voters determined to torpedo any prospective admin who doesn't
>toe the line entirely.
>
>--
>== 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Folks,
I was reviewing some television programming I have on tape, and came across
an interview with the extraordinary dancer, choreographer and company
director, Paul Taylor. In this interview with Jeffrey Brown on "The News
Hour with Jim Lehrer" he said: "Sometimes I think a company's morale is more
important than the choreography."
He was speaking about his own company of dancers; I think this should give
us pause when we are considering our own community of editors.
Marc Riddell
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net]
>Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:14 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research: our secret pleasure?
>
>On Sat, 26 May 2007, William Pietri wrote:
>> Personally, I feel that the rules we have, like the parts on an
>> airplane, should be the minimum number necessary to achieve the goal.
>> Anything else slows us down. Personally, until their's a problem, I'd
>> rather leave WP:OR untouched. I think that Ken's case of rules-lawyer
>> vandals is better solved by judicious application of [[WP:DICK]] rather
>> than adding more rules.
>
>The problem with rules lawyer vandals is that they are, by definition,
>following the rules. If you revert what they do, they'll just change it
>back (they usually stick around long enough for that) and you'll end up
>getting into a revert war and being considered the vandal for inserting
>original research or whatever.
Yes, we need to carve out an exception in policy.
Fred
You're definitely on to something. Who ever wrote a book about [[BatMUD]]? That article was written by people who have played and what's the harm? This sort of thing makes Wikipedia more interesting. But please, no original research about [[general relativity]].
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com]
>Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:07 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research: our secret pleasure?
>
>
>Consider, for a moment, this edit:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Addams_Family_%28pinball%29&d…
>
>It is a minor modification to our description of "The Addams Family"
>pinball machine. Because I happen to own one of those machines, I know
>that this edit is partly right but almost certainly partly wrong.
>However, I haven't played it much lately, so my first instinct was to
>commit the grievous sin of original research by playing a few games.
>
>In thinking about this further, there are whole classes of article just
>like this one, full of uncited information that is probably original
>research. The unifying characteristics seem to be:
>
> 1. If the article is somewhat inaccurate, there is little risk of
> real-world harm,
> 2. The topic is of relatively low importance,
> 3. Having something on the topic is a net benefit to our readers, and
> 4. There is a wide enough base of people with knowledge of the topic
> that the article can generally be verified from collective
> personal experience.
>
>
>Personally, I think these articles are worth keeping. Our readers get
>information they want. It also seems like a good place for newbies to
>contribute: it's a topic they are interested in, there is plenty for
>them to fix, and if they don't get it exactly right they won't
>immediately be reverted and slapped with a talk page notice containing
>eight links to policy shortcuts as they would on, say, [[Evolution]].
>
>As far as I can tell, though, there is no written policy or guideline
>for this kind of thing. Is that the case? It's probably for the best,
>honestly, as they are doing fine without it, and I imagine creating a
>special exception for this kind of thing would lead to all sorts of
>disruptive wikilawyering.
>
>Regardless, I thought it was interesting how much has been built in the
>outskirts of our metropolis. Not up to our building codes, but not a big
>problem, and better than nothing.
>
>William
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
G'day Joe,
> Was this change in public tone and approach to BLP, DRV, et al
> discussedanywhere beyond this mailing list and on-wiki? Any other
> maillists, or IRC?
> It seems that suddenly a collection of senior people that work
> together are
> all on a unified page on something which is going to be very
> contententiousto many individuals. If this is the New Way, would
> one of you be so good as
> to specifically modify WP:BLP with these changes, to see if the
> communityaccepts them?
Wikis in general, including MediaWiki in particular, are very poor for conducting discussions. It's
inevitable, and desirable, that there will be discussion --- even discussion between "a collection of senior
people" --- about Wikipedia in other areas, be it mailing lists, IRC, Wikimania, or around the kitchen table
after work.
I am unable or unwilling to access many of the fora used for off-wiki discussion --- for example, I have no
wish to join foundation-L (unwilling); I am not allowed to join the arbcom list (unable). Likewise, you are
not willing or able to join IRC --- or many of the other areas where off-wiki discussion occurs. This does
not cause me any stress. It seems to stress you a great deal.
If something is discussed and/or agreed to in a forum that doesn't involve me, I say: fine. Now show me
your reasoning and explain to me why I should accept what you said elsewhere. I don't say: You can't do
that! We should shut down that mailing list/channel/kitchen table!
Off-wiki discussion is a Good Thing. You're worried about being locked out, and that's a legitimate
concern. But the solution isn't to complain about off-wiki discussion, as you have repeatedly and shrilly
done. The solution is for those who engage in off-wiki discussion to ensure, if they want to be taken
seriously, that they explain themselves just as well on-wiki as they did off.
Compare: "I have made Decision X after discussion on IRC"
"I have made Decision X because I believe it is the Right Thing to do. As discussed on IRC,
this is the Right Thing because of Y, Z, A, and B."
Unexplained decisions are a problem whether accompanied by oogedy-boogedy about off-wiki discussion
or not. Let's focus on the *real* problem and stop deriding useful means of communication.
Cheers,
--
[[User:MarkGallagher]]