On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Lar is foolish, IMO, to contribute to WR; it's a shifting mess of
> crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with
> paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking. On
> the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I
> feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening
> impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this
> case.
I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the
pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted
to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time
and place. This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.
The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of
our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has
broken down rather badly and completely. There is nothing more
dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have
both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the
motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.
We have a pair of double-edged swords in play. Both the investigation
of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the
investigation of abuses within the community require investigators
(editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and
engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of
either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or
external troublemakers.
The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each
other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.
Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat
associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception
and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that
(a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed
block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in
retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).
I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to
what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external
threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting
Wikipedia's goals and community.
I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this
- "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out
as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably
as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more
involved than we are). Determine whether the factions have become
sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this
needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.
It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.
It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone
involved. Myself certainly included. I hope not Larry or Allison - I
personally have high regard for their support for the project and
community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an
honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.
If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve
into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with
the resources at hand. I put forth that this is already in play,
though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've
been playing.
Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make
the center hold on this.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
>
> From: "Alec Conroy" <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dangerous factionalism (Was: Re: SlimVirgin
> and CheckUser leaks)
>
> Again, the point here isn't justice, but to figure out how we can best
> write an encyclopedia.
>
> Let us assume, as you do, that there are clear innocents here. Even
> still, I think it's entirely plausible that a person could be
> sufficiently victimized that they're no longer capable of performing
> the role of admin.
>
> As the number of conflicts a user is involved in increases, it errodes
> their ability to serve as an uninvolved neutral third party able to
> resolve inter-user conflict. It's conceivable to me, in the abstract,
> a user could, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a
> position where it was probably best they no longer act as an admin.
>
> One way of looking at it would be that, as factions form, it might be
> hard for a controversial user to reasonably be viewed as "uninvolved"
> in practically any inter-user. Another argument could be that a user
> has become a lightning rod for a deeper dispute-- much like the guilt
> or innocents of OJ Simpson became, in some circles, a focal point for
> race relations in the US. Or maybe it's as simple as recognizing the
> status quo isn't working out for the project-- akin to the end of a
> romantic relationship, recognizing "This just isn't working out...
> I'm sorry, but, the precise nature of our relationship has to change,
> but I hope we can still be friends".
>
> (But admittedly, this whole line of thinking is predicated upon the
> assumption that adminship truly is not a trophy, and that therefore,
> desysopping is truly not automatically a demerit, a punishment, or a
> mark of guilt. )
>
> Alec
>
Wouldn't it be just a bit easier to have admins go on wikibreak instead?
It'd have the same effect (assuming either works) and without the stigma of
desysopping. Or else suggest that admins voluntarily stop doing admin
things for a while. If necessary, a wikibreak could be enforced (there's a
script to add to your monobook.js file, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User
scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer]], which could do it) or something
drastic like that, and it'd still be better (I think).
[[User:Lifebaka]]
In a message dated 7/24/2008 4:23:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
My answer: Adminship isn't a role at all, it's a permission. If you
want to compare it to something, try something like CPR certification.>>
------------------
Well the problem with that is that with CPR certification you are trained.
There's a test you must pass, its standardized to make sure you don't assist
someone to die faster :)
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
>
>
>
> Man, one new yorker cartoon per article. Why didn't wikipedia think of
> that?
>
>
>
> ****************************************
>
Because encyclopedias should not be relying on self-aggrandizing, unfunny,
and poorly considered cartoons such as the New Yorker; and we should be
focusing on legitimate information.
Case in point: Would the Barack Obama article be improved by the inevitable
inclusion of the incredibly offensive and almost universally criticized
cartoon of him in terrorist garb fist-bumping an afro wearing militant
Michelle Obama? Yes, that's certainly neutral point of view right there.
Ignoring for a second the epic fail in their poor taste attempt at satire,
the New Yorker's cartoons are by definition non-neutral, and as such would
unduly skew any Wikipedia article they were added to.
It's just more of a sign that Knol is not actually even attempting to be a
competitor to Wikipedia, and rather a whole different genre of product.
--
Dan Rosenthal
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> When there is a brawl in a bar, and the police walk in, they do not
> attempt to figure out who caused it, whose fault it is, who is to
> blame, etc. They tell everyone to stop. Now. And if *anyone* doesn't
> stop, they arrest that person (or worse.) How often that person,
> being dragged off, is screaming, "But he started it!"
But if one person is participating in the brawl because they had to defend
themselves and they'd rather it be a brawl than a beating, they could file
charges against the other one. The legal system doesn't say "you're
equally punished, now go away"; if one person's at fault, and the system
works properly, the system will figure that out and later punish only him.
And if someone makes a police report about a burglar, the police don't
respond by arresting both them and the burglar.
So one question on the psychological profile for admins might be:
A) As an admin do you visualize your role as janitor, hall monitor, or riot
patrol ?
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:25 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 7/23/2008 1:29:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> cdhowie(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> << What exactly about noindexing pages removes their history? >>
>
> It makes it invisible to Google.
> The internal search in ineffective in doing what Google can do with searches
Last I checked, Google is not responsible for maintaining our history
tab. Google is not some god we worship. Depending on Google to
search our website is bad practice.
--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
In a message dated 7/23/2008 1:17:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
risker.wp(a)gmail.com writes:
You haven't been paying attention. There are all kinds of BLP violations on
user and user talk pages, the vast majority of them unrecognised and
unaddressed. >>
---------------------------
Then address them. Wiping all history is not the way to so do.
I submit that you can't find five such violations, keeping in mind that "BLP
violation" is in the eye of the beholder as we all should know.
If you can, address them.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
In a message dated 7/23/2008 1:17:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
risker.wp(a)gmail.com writes:
Google for the user? Really? You can't find talk pages or user
contribution histories with out Google?>>
---------------
You know perfectly well (I think) that that is not to what I refer.
I'm not looking for the user's page, but rather the user, wherever they
appear.
If there is an allusion to so-and-so getting into a nasty fight with
such-and-such, I need to look for the two of them together to see what it's about.
It's not perfectly likely that that fight appeared on either user or user
talk pages of *them* but it may appear on the talk page of somebody else.
Historians need to preserve the ability to biograph the historians
themselves. That is part of the history of Wikipedia. We are not just a series of
articles, but rather individuals and some of those individuals create
intriguing historians of their own. Noindexing user talk pages effectively wipes the
ability to learn whatever-can-be-known about the people who create Wikipedia.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Just to let you guys know, prescriptive, descriptive and most
importantly 'thoughtful' essays are welcomed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethics
Best wishes to all Wikipedians for the new year