On 9/2/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Alternatively, you could try Googling for the name
> or pseudonym of the blocked or banned user
> directly.
You're the one complaining, please provide an example where searching
for someones name brings up a Wikipedia result that says they are
banned. It sounds like something we should improve... but I need to
see some examples. Right now all I can find is "Willy on Wheels", and
I don't really see a problem in that extreme a case.
For the purpose of the discussion here it would be also be useful to
show where David refused to extend the same courtesy elsewhere, since
you appear to be criticizing for not doing so.
On 8/31/07, Monahon, Peter B. <Peter.Monahon(a)uspto.gov> wrote:
>
> > [Re: Misogyny is the perfect troll]
> > Earlier: ... I think this thread needs to
> > end if we continue to get so personal ...
>
> Peter Blaise responds: Isn't that exactly what's being asked about
> cleaning up the offensive, denigrating crap that is accepted, even
> defended on Wikipedia?
>On the one hand, when (the generic) "others"
> feel uncomfortable, the response is, "Get over it." But, when (the
> generic) "I" feel uncomfortable, then "this discussion must come to an
> end!"
Nicely said.
>
> > [Re: Article authorship was: Making damn
> > sure image attribution is very clear]
> > Earlier: ... Photographers upload their
> > original photographs to Wikipedia ...
> > Response: ... Of a reality largely not of
> > the photographer's creation ...
>
> Peter Blaise responds: Ooops! What's THAT supposed to mean?
> A photograph is not "of a reality" any more than anyone's
> writing, or dancing, or singing, or painting, or any other creative form
> speech is "of a reality". As Magrite painted, "This is not a pipe" -
> it's a painting! (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte)
> Universally, the photographer gets 100% copyright at the moment
> they release their camera's shutter, at the capture of even the latent
> image. Not part copyright to the photographer and part copyright to the
> creator of the so-called external reality!
> Rather than explore if there even IS an external reality, let me
> direct us all to review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright and many
> other copyright dialogs across the world and through history, especially
> about photography, which has been (legally) considered (US
> Constitutionally protected) free speech for more than 100 years already!
> Why is this news for anyone anymore?
>
>
Because people think that shooting pictures only requires the
ownership of a camera--once the technology was invented everyone in
the known universe became an artist. This isn't true. It never has
been. Artists who took pictures in the 1850s that could readily be
reproduced today to better quality are still talked about for their
work--the artists are talked about, because they left something of
value to human culture, their art work.
And heck, people pay for my pictures, even when they could shoot the
same thing, and even though photography is not my genre. But I'm an
artist, and people buy art, and technology doesn't make the artist
today, any more than it did 25,000 years ago.
But writing facts, distilling information in a non-creative manner
from published and established sources is something that a lot of
people can do and do well--this is what makes Wikipedia work.
KP
Folks,
I have just spent some time reviewing the List's archives for the past
several months, and it is clear something is changing and not for the
good. The dialogues have become more combative, argumentative and downright
mean. The individual contributions have become more aggressive, intolerant,
patronizing, bullying, insulting, and downright mean. There has been a
steady decline in fairness, civility and just plain listening.
It has gotten to the point where a person needs to dress in helmet and full
padding before submitting a post. How many persons, who would otherwise
contribute to the List, simply choose not to - feeling it's not worth the
hassle?
What's going on?
Marc Riddell
The original content of my post, under this subject header, was about
the recent events involving a couple of our well-known and well-liked
admins, and apparent accusations of checkuser abuses.
The subject of how to deal with reading and catching up on threads was
secondary, although still somewhat related, but nevertheless off the
topic. This brought to mind the idea that people might integrate some
basic courtesy in posting threads which deviate from the core topic,
perhaps just by adding an (OT) in the subject line.
More to the point, condensing excessively long subject headers would
be good thing to do, particularly if they have words like "Nazis" and
"rape" in them.
-stevertigo
On 9/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> > On 8/31/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Because in my personal opinion the quality of posts varies per author,
> >> not per thread.
> >>
> >> Mind you, in practice I still read everything ...
> >>
> > I would call that impressive, but really, it's just mental :)
> >
> There are limits! A loooong post from some sender that I don't
> recognize, and that begins with "Some bastard just blocked me ..." is
> likely to draw as much of my reading time as the post that I am now
> answering. :-)
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
In respect to a thread here and a recent private discussion I'll highlight
the valuable side effects of misogyny.
*Misogyny discredits the individual who possesses it.* From a distance it
may not be obvious which side of a dispute can supply better evidence,
but open bigotry sure as heck is obvious.
*Misogyny relieves me of regrets.* Sometimes I second guess myself after I
use the sysop tools. A sexist quip clears my conscience. I go away happy
to be the sysop and equally happy the fellow is blocked or banned.
*Misogyny is the perfect troll. * I'm not above a little *schadenfreude*; I
think it's hilarious. Misogyny generates misery among a certain set of
people who are basically unpleasant anyway and wastes huge amounts of their
time and energy. Best of all, I break zero rules and keep all my online
buddies while they make themselves despised and sometimes even endanger
their careers.
-Durova
Anyone,
Real quick question (I don't know where else to go for this):
On a Mailing List what is the difference between a digested & non-digested
Member? This is not the beginning of a joke - I really don't know. I just
hope it's not a culinary thing :-).
Marc
> Sure enough, the better I got the more people thought I was male. That
had
> side benefits sometimes. My happiest moment as an athlete was the look in
> the eyes of a five-year-old girl when she realized a *woman* had executed
> the stunt she really liked to watch. And eventually, in a totally
different
> context, it led to a hilarious encounter with a couple of Hell's Angels
> who thought I was a guy.
>
You make it sound like posting a picture of yourself would not have
helped. :-)
In certain situations people set their brains on energy saver mode and
ignore obvious evidence such as the hourglass figure. I joked about getting
the hog repainted in Barbie pink. Usually people got the hint when they saw
I was wearing a scrunchy. That particular day I was taking a long ride up
the San Joaquin valley and had tucked my hair into my jacket to reduce
tangles.
Seriously, some of the replies at this thread have really looked like
examples of the fundamental attribution error.
-Durova
On 8/25/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> even an entire article
> in Wikipedia is seldom ever the contribution of only one editor,
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
All the data that I've seen so far suggest that most articles may well
be the product of single authors. Not most high profile articles, or
most featured articles, ... but most articles. Most articles are
mostly short and on obsecure matters.
Yes, most have had edits by a few others. But these edits are
overwhelmingly tagging and markup related. It would often be hard to
argue that they were substantial enough to carry a copyright interest,
and no one sane would argue that such edits are enough to rightly call
the editor an author.
On 28 Aug 2007 at 14:57:16 -0700, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Either the system works... we are mostly honorable people, and have
> enough honest and principled people that if something seriously
> sinister started someone would stand up and publically announce it and
> call for it to end.
...and get labeled a "troll", his messages summarily deleted as
trolling, and eventually he gets banned, then any subsequent person
who expresses similar ideas gets labeled a "sockpuppet" and banned
too, even more summarily. And the clique pats themselves on the back
for defeating another bad guy.
--
== 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/