[WikiEN-l] Dealing with AOL over vandalism

Sat Aug 30 19:43:08 UTC 2003

>From: daniwo59 at aol.com
>Reply-To: Discussion list for English-language 
>Wikipedia<wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] blocking AOL users
>Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:58:48 EDT
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by 
>mc12-f18.adinternal.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, 
>30 Aug 2003 05:59:06 -0700
>Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by 
>pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7UCx3n32081;Sat, 30 Aug 
>2003 12:59:03 GMT
>Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163])by 
>pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7UCx1n32071for 
><wikien-l at wikipedia.org>; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:59:01 GMT
>Received: from daniwo59 at aol.comby imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) 
>id 8.43.21785a6e (16781)for <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 
>08:58:48 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Message-Info: vAu4ZEtdRigHscoddWhVe52f53EV3Kow
>Message-ID: <43.21785a6e.2c81f988 at aol.com>
>X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 531
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: Discussion list for English-language 
>Wikipedia<wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://pliny.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>Return-Path: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2003 12:59:06.0412 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[7EC166C0:01C36EF6]
>
>I am an AOL user. I am also a sysop and I have been contributing to 
>Wikipedia
>for well over a year. I have found myself blocked on several occasions
>because of blocks against Michael. There is absolutely no justification for 
>blocking
>thousands of potential users like me just because we happen to use AOL. 
>There
>must be some other solution.
>
>Danny

I would hate to use Danny, who is a superb contributor, and many other 
potentially excellent contributions. What I would suggest is

1. Wiki FORMALLY requests that AOL produce a solution to the Michael 
problem, with the threat that if they don't , all AOL users will be blocked 
and the blocking of AOL will be PUBLICLY announced to the media in a 
publicity blitz, in which it will be accused through negligence of placing 
wikipedia and other websites in danger from vandalism.  That formal request 
come from Jimbo to SENIOR figures in AOL. To balance the threat, Wiki must 
make it clear that it will work with AOL to do what it takes, if AOL is 
willing to act. That should offer a methodology whereby, to avoid public 
criticism, AOL can back down and work of a solution.

If they don't, it must be made clear that Wiki WILL act. That will require a 
professional media campaign, with Jimbo and others available to brief the 
media on why this extreme action is being taken. Press releases should be 
released to all news organisations, including AP, Reuters and the main print 
and broadcast sources in the US. The BBC in particular should be targeted. 
AOL is currently mounting a major PR campaign in the UK. Having criticism of 
it on the BBC both locally and internationally would be something I suspect 
AOL would be desparate to avoid.

The effects of this campaign would be three-fold:
(a) to leave AOL in no doubt but that wikipedia is deadly serious about its 
threat;
(b) That AOL risks damaging its own reputation, and having other websites 
also publicly criticising its behaviour (there is a lot of unhappiness out 
there with AOL. One credible encyclopædia attacking AOL may well lead to 
other websites too going public on their problems with AOL);
(c) the campaign would earn widespread coverage for wikipedia, identifying 
itself as a credible, serious encyclopædia that will not tolerate vandalism 
and will not allow its reputation to be damaged by the arrogance and poor 
standards of any provider.

2. A specific date, perhaps two weeks or a month from the issuing of the 
press release, is stated at which point a ban will be imposed. In the 
intervening period, a message is prominently displayed on the main page and 
if possible in a banner on other pages, stating that because of AOL's 
negligent refusal to offer a means to control vandalism to the site, AOL 
users will no longer be able to enter the site from 'x' date.

3. A separate page be created explaining in detail /why/ this decision is 
being taken, with suggestions to users like Danny as to how to change 
provider, making it clear that wikipedia is not accusing AOL users of 
vandalising site and that the problem with AOL, not them.

4. A message is created which will show up after the cut-off date to AOL 
users trying to access the site explaining why they cannot gain access.

The chaos with Michael and others cannot continue. And the threat from 
isolated nutters targeting the site is likely to increase as the site grows. 
So this problem needs to be confronted now, rather than left drift until we 
have a far bigger problem later on, one which could turn good users away on 
frustration.

JT

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus