Chad Perrin said: I should hope that anyone making accusations of that nature would be prepared to support them.> I may have misread it, but Kevin's wording was as follows: "I've come to the realization that people are searching out nude pictures to put in the 'pedia. They are looking to stir up trouble, mostly to make a point." That seems to be a pretty specific accusation, aimed at a subset of those who upload images, specifically images involving nudity, accusing them of doing so with the intention of breaking Wikipedia policy. I take that very seriously. It's an extremely damaging accusation, and if Kevin has evidence to support it he should make it public. If he doesn't well we'll know he's just hand-waving, indulging in attempt to denigrate those who have uploaded images involving nudity.

Chad Perrin said: Quite. Absolutely not. He specifically said that he "recognized" that people were doing something with the deliberate intention of breaching policy. I see no room for misinterpretation. Having no evidence to show, it seems to me that the assumption of bad faith , and a massive, obvious one at that, is on his part. I'm revolted by this. I see no apology. I see no withdrawal, only weaseling and wriggling. A disgusting accusstion, disgusting behavior in continuing with it. He has now confirmed his accusation of bad faith against a specific, named editor.

Kevin inadvertetly made a paralipsis, http://www.wordsmith.org/words/paralipsis.html. A paralipsis is basically a way of trying to state something without having to back it up. It is another rhethorical trick that is very hard to counter because the speaker makes sure it is not he who is stating it. "I've come to the realization that people are searching out nude pictures to put in the 'pedia. They are looking to stir up trouble, mostly to make a point." This is a bad paralipsis that Tony rightly objected to. Kevin IS definitely asserting a fact here. He could have gotten away with it by instead of saying "I've come to the realization that..." say "I have a feeling that..." or "Someone told me that..." or "I've heard that..." or "It might be that..." If he would have phrased his paralipsis like that, Tony would probably appear as a petty troublemaker that questions something unessential. Still, since noone except Tony has opposed Kevin's statement, and people have questioned Tony's motives for "nitpicking," it shows how effective this rhethorical trick is. Tony has lost, but atleast he got people to question the validity of Kevin's statement. -- mvh Björn

Zzzzzzz On 14 Apr 2005, at 8:45 pm, David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:

Chad Perrin said: It's quite clear that the intent was to discredit those who disagreed with Kevin by questioning their motives and directly attacking their good faith. It was a vile accusation, insupportable and unworthy of this list.

Chad Perrin said: He did not speculate. He stated it as a fact. Suppose he had speculated, though, why would he choose to make such a damaging, bad faith, unsupported, and frankly malicious speculation?

You missed my point. Kevin "realized" that people who uploads nudie pics are trying to stir up trouble - aka trolling. Therefore, if you defend the uploading of nudie pics you are therefore defending trolling - aka trolling. Therefore, those who defend displaying undressed images in wiki-en are at a disadvantage since they become associated with trolling. Yes, we have all heard Tony accusing Kevin of making wild accusations. But it's pretty clear that Kevin's statements isn't factually supportable. :) I don't know what perfidies mean. I'm not associated with Tony so please do not lump me together with him. I have not as far as I know speculated about anything. It was "literary analysis" as someone else called it. Speculation would be something along the lines of: Why is someone complaining about two pixels of nipple on one (1) breast on a 200x150 pixels wide screenshot from a PG-13 rated movie? Is the nipple even visible from a distance of more than 20 cm? Is this person objecting to this image to try and stir up trouble? Doesn't anyone have any sense of proportions? Sorry to Kevin and everyone else who got "offended" by this image. But I really don't think Wikipedia should cater your very special needs. -- mvh Björn

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 05:50:26PM +0200, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: It seems that it is you that has missed my point: He may simply have phrased that poorly, failing to specify the status of that "realization" as arising from a personal perspective, perhaps because he simply didn't take the time to consider other possible perspectives. Nothing in his mails to the lists that I've seen have indicated that he is intractably unwilling to rephrase or retract that statement if asked, but I find the attempts to back him into a corner where he has to defend something that would be better recanted or rephrased to be, frankly, odious. You are making a declaration of his intent without bothering to ask him. You assume bad faith. You also assume absolutist applications of what was presented as only a trend. He never "realized" that ALL people who upload nude images are trying to stir up trouble -- only that there (seems to be / is) a pattern of such behavior arising recently. Therefore, if you defend the uploading of nude images WHERE APPROPRIATE, you are NOT defending trolling, but if you defend it where they are INAPPRPOPRIATE you may very well be trolling. THAT is the impression I got from his statements. Your assumption that he thinks all nude images are inappropriate under all circumstances does not seem reasonable to me, nor does your assumption that, even if did think all nude images are inappropriate, he couldn't admit the possibility that some people are merely "misguided" by his standards. Assume good faith. Please. Try it on for size. You might like it. True. That doesn't alter the factual accuracy of what I said one whit. Is there a purpose to bringing up this point again? Are you perhaps agreeing with my own statement to that effect? Are you going to start accusing me of things for which there's no evidence now? I didn't "lump [you] together with him" at all. I simply made reference to the fact that you and Tony have both had some harsh things to say about Kevin's motivations. Surely you must admit that there is at least that much in common between what you have said and what Tony has said here. I do indeed see "speculation" in what you've been saying, because you are making statements that pertain to Kevin's motivations and state of mind. Since you are not privy to Kevin's motivations or state of mind any more than allowed by his own statements about such things, any statements you make on the matter are nothing but speculation. Nor do I, put that way. I agree that, if appropriate to the subject matter as a helpful illustration of the article, it should be included. I do not, however, think that your reaction to Kevin's comments is strictly reasonable. -- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:50:01PM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote: Again: Where's the assumption of good faith? Where NPOV is "law" in judging the content of Wikipedia, assumption of good faith applies in judging the metadiscussion that occurs behind the scenes. I don't think it is in any way necessary to assume he thought he "could get away with" anything. Perhaps he just phrased something very poorly. -- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:41:28PM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote: Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I've pointed out repeatedly that your use of the term "accusation" to characterize Kevin's statements strikes me as a likely example of an assumption of bad faith. -- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]