I would. RickK Andrew <imthesponge(a)hotmail.com> wrote: So you would support a rule against any user name constituting an opinion? -evil saltine --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

Wikipedia is a privately-owned entity. Although we treat it as a democracy (and even an anarchy), it is not a governmental agency, and you have no "right" to do anything. RickK Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com> wrote: --- Rick wrote: That's bit broad, don't you think? Wikipedians are allowed to have opinions. I see no reason why usernames should be NPOV. I think this would be a serious violation of freedom of speech. LDan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

Rick wrote: You tell 'em, RickK! Certainly Andrew there should not be allowed to use a name advocating the qualities "manly, valiant, courageous." On the other tentacle, of course, the name "Richard" expresses the opinion that its bearer is a "powerful ruler; brave one".... --~~~~ the Epopt, who has not, in fact, been initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries

They are opinions. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick To: English Wikipedia Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User names 1. Those are not opinions. 2. Even if they were, they would not be construed as opinions by the standard user of the system. RickK Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote: Rick wrote: You tell 'em, RickK! Certainly Andrew there should not be allowed to use a name advocating the qualities "manly, valiant, courageous." On the other tentacle, of course, the name "Richard" expresses the opinion that its bearer is a "powerful ruler; brave one".... --~~~~ the Epopt, who has not, in fact, been initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Stevertigo wrote: Yeah, /I/ know what it means? Do you??? -- Toby

Stevertigo wrote: Eh, that post was a bit over the top, and not very sensible. I think that I meant that it seemed rather circular to claim that a name must be changed because it's "inflammatory" ("of a nature to rouse passion, anger, or animosity" -- OED) when the only passion, anger, and animosity that it raised was in the business of changing names in the first place. There was no mention (there was eventually, but late in the process) of any emotions being aroused by the name /other/ than the desire to ban it on the grounds that it was "inflammatory". But that is hardly what I said; which, as I mentioned, was not very coherent. And was overly combative. And rude. Sorry about that. Yes, I am absolutely arguing against that policy. A more detailed case, from principle, is in my most recent post, which is a lengthy reply to a post from mav. According to that article, Wikifaith is faith in the wiki process. That's neither here nor there when it comes to personal usernames. I have a great deal of faith in the wiki process these days -- more than I did when I first heard of it! ^_^ I also have faith that Wikipedia will generally do the right thing; perhaps that is what you meant. To the extent that money measures faith, note that I made the largest charitable contribution of my life to date (by a factor of more than 3) on the basis of this faith, last week. Still, this faith is not blind. See, if that ever /really/ went through, I would leave. Hell, if it were ever a serious issue, I'd lose a lot of faith (in Wikipedia, but not much in the wiki process in general). OK, that might not be entirely without doubt; I know the danger of making absolute statements. But I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible situation where such a name change would be remotely a good idea -- I mean for the community to attempt to impose on me by force. I suspect that the world would be a better place if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules. If people couldn't do anything to change Drolsi's old name /other/ than to talk to him on a personal basis and try to convince him that it would be a good idea, then that might have been what people tried in the first place! This suspicion, like the rambling at the end of my reply to mav, is also much broader than just Wikipedia -- and as in that case, Wikipedia is much closer to my ideal than most insitutions are. This is even -- dare I say it? -- a big part of Wikifaith to me. In wikis, people /can't/ stop others from editing their text; and this forces collaboration instead of single authorship. Instituting banning and page protection -- even if necessary, in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad thing too, like anythin that interferes with the wiki process (in which I have so much faith). -- Toby

To make the argument that usernames are in some way different is the same as saying that they are special -- in what way are they special? Do they need to be protected? Are they under some different right, or sphere, where the rules that govern other Wikipedia aspects are separate? This argument works both ways-- you can say "why treat usernames so differently" if they are not "special". The answer is obvious-- they are different, because we cant simply "edit" them-- we cant click change this username and presto-- it be wikified. Its among the few aspects of Wiki that are beyong wiki means, and yet are system-level in nature. Choosing a name is a system command, and not a wiki edit. ~S~ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

At 12:23 AM 10/14/2003, Ray wrote: But, since the Wiki software keeps track of every edit by username, a username becomes a part of EVERY edit that the user makes. Therefore, while CHOOSING the name isn't a wiki edit, every subsequent edit has the name imbedded. This makes it subject to NPOV rules... assuming that the person makes at least one edit ever... and if they don't, what's the point in arguing? ----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321

Stevertigo wrote: Ray claimed: Dante Alighieri pounced: EVERY edit that the user makes. Therefore, while Dante is right. This whole thread is silly. To say that wikipedians shouldnt have a means to enforce NPOV in usernames is essentially saying "lets ask Jimbo to handle each and every case." ~S~ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

Dante Alighieri wrote: I don't know why we're trying to draw some connection between making a wiki edit and the application of NPOV; a special command (like creating the username in the first place) is not exempt from NPOV simply because it's not an ordinary edit. These are entirely separate matters. NPOV was developed for the content of encyclopaedia articles. It extends easily to other reference material (like Wikibooks). I don't believe that it adapts well to personal statements (posts on talk pages, user pages, edit summaries, usernames), and I would oppose any attempt to apply it directly to them. To do so would be a category error. This is yet separate from /other/ reasons to monitor those things, such as etiquette, avoiding offence to other users, and the like. -- Toby

Stevertigo wrote: There is another choice (although it might be included in the above). The community could decide to try to avoid interfering in some things, concentrating on writing articles (and to a lesser extent policy) but ignoring random POV accumulations around individual users. For the most part, the community does this -- such as on user pages. Whether this decision comes through community consensus, or is imposed by Jimbo, I don't really care. ^_^ Hey, I can only read what's on the web page that you linked to! That says "the wiki model of web development". But OK, I have faith in people too. Ah, but this is more than simply faith in people! Just because somebody has faith in people doesn't mean that they'll believe that Wiki works. I'm sure that there's a strong correlation here -- in fact, I'd be surprised if /anybody/ had faith in wiki yet had no faith in people -- but it doesn't follow. So there is something more to the principle, something which you and I both think is correct, but which others might not. I have faith in people, including Wikipedians; but many human institutions fail despite good people in them. So I /additionally/ have faith that Wikipedia also works. I'm not sure if it's my faith or yours that is the larger. Do I have more faith, since I believe in Wikipedia as well as Wikipedians? Or do you have more faith, since (according to this hypothesis) you believe that instiutions made up of good people must work? If the latter, then I have less faith, because I disagree! (and cite every state in human history as my evidence ^_^). No, my money is /not/ work hours quantified. Indeed, work hours are measured in hours, not dollars. But even work itself hardly corresponds well to dollars. (For example, I wouldn't work more on Wikipedia for money.) And I don't see any use in comparing my donation to others'. In terms of total amounts, our levels of financial freedom are bound to be quite different -- and Jimbo has us all beat. Even if we could translate the donations into work (or work hours), these don't have the same value to each person either (and they'd have to be balanced by other work on Wikipedia). Finally, even if a meaningful comparison did exist, what would be the point? OTOH, comparing this donation to my past donations is useful, in that money means about the same to me when I donate to Wikimedia as when I donate to various other groups. Not entirely meaningful, since you also have to figure in the various groups' financial needs. But there are other groups that, like Wikimedia, don't need my donation but could still put it to good use (a middle ground between groups that are very wealthy and groups that are desperate for funds). So, in the end, I think that it says /something/ that my donation to Wikimedia was much larger. Not a huge point in the end, however; treat my multiparagraph reply as theoretical in nature, rambling about the nature of money more than anything else. Actually, if the content was interesting, I might keep it. But anyway, if your point is that nothing would come of it ... well, the conclusion I draw is that Wikipedia isn't as bad as it could be. Hell, I conceded that a long time ago! -- that's what all that talk about my faith in Wikipedia is about. But it doesn't at all follow that a namechange proposal that something /does/ come from is a good idea, right? That's the debate here. Hrm? What does that mean? If you mean that you feel that I'm drifting off topic, so that you don't want to respond to rest of my post, then that's fine with me. (But you do respond! ^_^) It's worse than idealistic; it's counterfactual! But still interesting to me to think what might happen; counterfactuals often give insight into reality. Isn't that the argument /against/ forcing the change? ^_^ KQ, I think. Also not particularly relevant. While nobody has /any/ right to edit Wikipedia, that doesn't mean that any rules that we impose on editors are a /good idea/. I wasn't so much criticising what /you did/ as criticising what /Drolsi saw done/ -- although you started that, I suppose. Drolsi may yet prove to be an old troll trying to rile us up; I'm more concerned about the next Drolsi, who may be sincere. Under it all, the very existence of bans and blocks is an evil. Given the attraction of vandals, it seems to be a necessary evil. But it is unwiki -- that is a fact (whereas as "evil" is opinion) -- and we should recognise that, to help us make wise decisions about it. The same goes for page deletion and anything done through an SQL query, including changing usernames. They're edits that ordinary users cannot make, hence unwiki -- necessary though they may be. -- Toby

Toby Bartels wrote: I confess that I reacted to the name facetiously and jokingly, but I would still defend JiL's right to the name he wants. Toby's right, there was no problem until those who wanted a changed name started one. 1. A vote to limit an individual's rights is tyrannous. 2. Please don't confuse the will of the community with the will of a small clique. I have more faith in the wiki process than in some of its users. The vote was a farce. That kind of thing tends to attract mostly those who are right there clicking their knitting needles at the foot of the guillotine. Most would not participate in the vote because it's a waste of time away from what they are here to do, assuming of course that they knew about it in the first place.. If the turnout of voters for the logo vote (over 170 IIRC) is to be any kind of standard, 24 is about 14% of that. The logo vote was extensively advertised; what advertising was done for this one? Yes, there are exceptions. Some months back there was the Anthere/Anthère/Anthére.... issue where somebody introduced a name that differed from that of a respected user by only an accent. As it was the person was trying to make some point and had no intention of continuing to use the confusing name, otherwise this could be a situation where the issue might be forced. Laws depend on enforcement to be effective. Regrettably speeding laws work only because there's a cop there with a radar gun. The number who will avoid speeding out of well considered altruism is likely small. Technology is a double-edged sword. Yes, and that reflection goes farther than Wikipedia. We've lost the skill of discussing our problems with our neighbors; we're afraid of the reaction that we might get from a direct approach. It's much easier to surprise him with a visit from the police or a subpoena from small claims court. But still an ideal. I often wonder about the sort of vision that sustains the participation of some Wikipedians. It's interesting that the matter of Wikifaith should come up in the context of one user's faith-bound name. Yes, they're analogous to imprisonment, exile and other forms of state perpetrated violence. I often wonder about those people who cry loudest about "bringing a criminal to justice"; justice is often farthest from their mind. Ec

Alex756 wrote in part: This is not surprising. I agree with Ec that «Call the authorities!» can be seductive, without disagreeing with you that it can also be ineffective. Right; the difference between mediation (people talking together) and arbitration (an authority imposing a difference) is huge! Wikipedia can have any limits on behaviour here whatsoever, in the sense that it would not interfere with societal "rights". Whether such limits are a good idea is, of course, another matter; sometimes they will be, and sometimes they won't be. -- Toby

Stevertigo wrote: So you concede defeat? Very well, I accept. -- Toby

Stevertigo wrote: Well ... in some sense, I'm always trolling when I argue with you. Because how does that get us anywhere ^_^? (Although I'm not seeking a /reaction/ from you, so I believe that it technically doesn't qualify.) However, the broad statements of principle -- nature of freedom, what Wikipedia has a right to do versus what is a good idea, the gap between individual responsibility and enforced rules -- I stand by them. And nothing that I wrote in response to mav was trolling; I would never troll mav. -- Toby

Eclecticology wrote: [many things that pleased me greatly; I respond to a part] I agree that this is a pretty clear case for forcing a name change (although in the end the impostor relented and nothing was forced). I still have a hard time thinking of a plausible situation where that would apply to /my/ username -- which was the topic in the bit that you replied to. But more generally, yes, these situations do exist. Technology, yes; but the point here is, so are laws. If there were no cop with a radar gun, then we might have safer cars. There is a whole anarchist literature (some bad ideas, some good) on how to have safe streets (etc) without having cops with guns. Ultimately, I write on Wikipedia because it's fun and interesting. Why I get involved in policy, must be some sort of idealism. I often drop out of that, actually; although usually real life plays a big role in those temporary disappearances (which less often extend to encyclopaedia articles as well). -- Toby