Hey there Wikipedia!
I'll try to keep this short and simple. As the title states I'm a university
student that is looking for some info on Wikipedia. I'm writing a speech on
the effects of internet censorship and would love to ask you guys and girls
a couple of questions regarding your views on acts like PIPA, SOPA, and
ACTA.
A brief email interview would be fantastic!
Thank you very much,
Tyler Stitt
PS. It's a persuasive speech on the negative impacts of internet censorship,
we're on the same side.
The exercise of privilege is not usually called bullying, nor, when its
prerogatives are denied are its holders called victims.
Wikipedia does accord privilege to authority but only published authority.
Fred
Only on WP. This kind of crap is why I've essentially given up on the site.
The man wants an article on HIS OWN WORK to be accurate, and was frustrated
by the apparently quite unhelpful people he met there. That's just plain
ridiculous, but it's beyond absurd that he would then be called a "bully"
for trying to get it fixed when no-one apparently seemed to interested in
helping him.
We should show concern when someone in the know shows up and says an
article is wrong, and not get territorial, which is what I'm suspecting
happened. How about "we're really not happy that the article is wrong, but
we need a source we can point to outside of WP for this fact. We can't
prove that you're actually who you say you are here. Can you make a
statement in a professional blog, or anywhere, almost, where your identity
is verified? Since it's about your own thoughts about your own work, that's
all we really need." Instead, the admin gave him some WP jargon about how
he's not a reliable source, so he took it to the news and complained, as he
rightly should, based on the way he was apparently treated.
I'm really, really sick of administrators acting like complete jerks, and
not only failing to get admonished in any significant way for it, but
people making up excuses for their dickish behavior, and then attacking the
victim as a "bully".
And yes, this is somewhat personal for me, in case you hadn't guessed.
During a content dispute, an administrator tried to gain the upper hand
against me by claiming I'd said off-site that I would intentionally add
false information to WP. Considering that kind of deceitful behavior goes
against my very personality, I was quite angry that he made an attack like
that up, and called the claim out for the lie it was. Can you guess how
that ended? I was accused by a number of editors (particularly, but not
limited to, his cabal of buddies) of trying to bully the administrator, and
they went so far as to attempt to make it part of an RFC against me and
others. That was years ago, but nothing ever changes on WP. Same old
dickishness, different year.
And people wonder why EN.WP can't keep editors.
Sxeptomaniac
> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 09:00:35 +0200
> From: Luca Motoc <motoc.luca(a)gmail.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] trying to bully us?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> 2012/9/8 Katie Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info>
>
> > Really? An author wanting us to correct inaccuracy on article talking
> > about his inspiration for a book is bullying, trying to dictate Wikipedia
> > content, and is throwing his weight around?
> >
> > If there's someone throwing their weight around here, look in the mirror
> > Wikipedia editors.
> >
> > KTC
> >
> > --
> > Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> > - Heinrich Heine
> >
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
> >
>
>
>
Fred, you say" Roth is an elderly man googling" and I am wondering if there
is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list
become unfit to drive?
Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this
moment..to dismiss him as "an elderly man googling" underscores why there
may be intergenerational unease on this enterprise. Show respect.This
comment that "Roth is an elderly man googling is spiteful and not a valid
point.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797
> >
> > "Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit"
> >
> > "Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia
> > entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its
> > end."
> >
> > Has this been mentioned on any other mailing lists?
> >
> > I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption
> > that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in
> > principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the
> > editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia
> > publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it
> > near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists?
> >
> > Carcharoth
>
> Roth is an elderly man googling, see
>
>
> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/09/internet-stain-philip-…
>
> Our current content seems appropriate.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
The Wikipedia community fosters a young male zeitgeist.This IS an attitude
problem that causes women to drop out. I have been a long time low level
contributor and thus have had a variety of response to efforts I have made.
Persistence has shown me that what one editor sees as "not credible" may be
that particular editor's world view and a contributor--CANNOT, EVER- change
the mind of most editors. So one needs to give up on that point, even if
you have gone to primary sources and have them on your table in front of
you. You have to move on. However, this resigned way of working w/in
Wikipedia is not going to be the way that many people approach it. Rebuffed
or being called "not credible" will mean we lose many contributors. It
should not be on the contributor to understand the editor. Contributors
come from all ages and societies. There are far fewer women contributing
than men. Why? Women take the harsh rebukes with more hurt. Really.
I am a teacher and suggest that students write for Wikipedia. Invariably
the female students have been made to feel stupid by editors and won't go
back. The male students are more likely to keep at it. This is the culture
that Wikipedia fosters. There are many exceptions….but generally, the tone
could be less harsh in dealing with contributors.
==============
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:35 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 September 2012 15:43, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I haven't had chance to look into this;
>
>
> That statement invalidates this statement:
>
>
> > Rather than whining about him we need to see the problem; it's an
> > attitude problem HERE.
>
>
> -d.
>
>
Well, it's simple. Be polite and non-confrontational and don't make the new
contributor feel they have no business trying.
Wikipedians are only about 20% female and the world is about 50%...so
there must be some noise on this channel.
Perhaps males have a higher tolerance for confrontation. Seems like that is
the case in life in general. Wikipedia is a choice for use of personal time
and if it is a place that can be (in editors' responses to
contributors) unnecessarily harsh. Fo people invested in a topic the way
Mr. Roth was treated is very telling.
I have taught male and female graduate students for many years. Both make
mistakes. It takes a lot of deliberation to be positively critical. I
generally re-write negative evaluations multiple times before I render them
to a student.Words can cause much pain.
Telling Mr. Roth he wasn't a credible source is the kind of heedless action
I mean. He had access to make his case in the *New Yorker *. Most of the
world does not.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 5:29 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 September 2012 22:20, Kathleen McCook <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I sense the raised (ironic) eyebrow in this question and since you know
> > the answer, I need not tell you,
>
>
> I think it was a genuine question, and one I had too.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Antin and others:
==================
As Wikipedia has become an indispensable source of online
information, concerns about who writes, edits, and main-
tains it have come to the forefront. In particular, the 2010
UNU-MERIT survey found evidence of a signi cant gender
skew: fewer than 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women.
However, the number of contributors is just one way to ex-
amine gender di erences in contribution. In this paper we
take a more ne-grained perspective by examining how much
and what types of Wiki-work men and women tend to do.
First, we nd that the so-called \Gender Gap" in number of
editors may not be as wide as prior studies have suggested.
Second, although more than 80% of editors in our sample
were men, among the bottom 75% of editors by activity-
level, we nd that men and women made similar numbers
of revisions. However, among the most active Wikipedians
men tended to make many more revisions than women. Fi-
nally, we nd that the most active women in our sample
tended to make larger revisions than the most active men.
We conclude by discussing directions for future research.
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~coye/Pubs/Articles/GenderWikiSym2011.pdf
I am baffled by this conversation. Roth is not trying to "bully" anyone; he
is trying to clarify a very bad situation. There is no reason he should
give over his creative spirit to Wikipedia. He is fighting for his artistic
life. And many many people al over the literary landscape are taking note.
I have sent other messages that have not appeared so I will just say again,
that tone of editors needs to be more self-aware.
BTW, the "Roth vs. Wikipedia " issue is being discussed on many many lists
by librarians, literary scholars, and students.
It is important. It is a time to learn.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
> This is the comment I made to The New Yorker article:
>
> If you, or anyone else, has a similar problem please contact the
> Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team Directions are on that page in
> Wikipedia.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team We are
> sorry this matter was not handled better.
>
> Read more
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikip…
>
> Now, a factual inquiry, if he had done that would this problem have been
> solved? Or would he still ended up trying to bully us?
>
> Fred
>
> > It's not a crazy train of thought though; people naturally feel they
> > are the authority on their own opinions.
> >
> > We usually don't do brilliantly in explaining why that doesn't work.
> > Because we start with explaining reliable sources, and often glaze
> > over the most important bit.
> >
> > I DO see these sorts of issues all the time. When I log into OTRS
> > there is sure to be at least one.
> >
> > I've taken to explaining that Wikipedia only summarises other sources.
> > So inaccuracy needs to be addressed either with a retraction from the
> > source, or another source appearing to rebut it.
> >
> > This is much more palatable than "your word isn't a reliable source".
> >
> > If for no other reason than the phrasing sounds like your impugning
> > the reliability of him/her as a person.
> >
> > Tom Morton
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2012, at 17:00, Charles Matthews
> > <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton
> >> <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> No it doesn't.
> >>>
> >>> I'll give you good odds on me being right.
> >>>
> >>> Because I see the same thing week after week.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> You mean leading author almost synonymous with "rare interview" assumes
> >> his
> >> word is good enough for WP? Complaining that people make up stuff about
> >> your inspiration is fair enough: bookchat, as Gore Vidal called it, has
> >> a
> >> percentage of drivel. But The Human Stain was published 12 years ago.
> >> Really, nothing on the record?
> >>
> >> (I know that isn't what you mean. But Wikipedians in this kind of
> >> situation
> >> do have to explain policy to those who don't get it, and act on it,
> >> even if
> >> dealing with someone famous.)
> >>
> >> Charles
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
There is no reason you need to like me. I was trying to make a few points
about the process.
--Kathleen
She's definitely adding to the dialogue, even if I don't like her line of
thought.
Fred
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > On 8 September 2012 14:21, Kathleen McCook <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> When I sent a post I get a message that it was being held for
> >> moderation;
> >> then this gets posted.
> >> Is there something one does to be unmoderated?
> >
> >
> > Everyone starts moderated. I clear the mod queue each morning and
> > unmoderate the non-spammers. You're unmoderated now :-)
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> She's definitely adding to the dialogue, even if I don't like her line of
> thought.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
The point is that the number of women editors is far smaller than men.
Is this not true, based on the statistics?
I am giving some reasons why many capable new contributors may withdraw
due to the response they receive from some editors.
Every woman is not Molly Ivins and when women leave as contributors process
it is because they do not want to suffer the experience a second time once
they are made to feel inadequate or not credible or whatever harsh language
has been used when their work has been rejected. The community loses many
good contributors due to the meanness of the process. I am speaking from
the experience of some women students who were not comfortable with the
taunting, aggressive response they received if one of their contributions
was deleted.
There is no reason for anyone to feel intellectually abused. It is
perfectly possible to reject, undo or request changes in a manner that is
civil and does not make the contributor feel diminished.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
> Everybody here who contributes runs into a brick wall from time to time
> and has to give up regarding some matter. The factual basis of the theory
> about gender you're advancing is not established; as everyone experiences
> the same frustrations.
>
> I've tried to edit certain articles controlled by point of view editors,
> doggedly advancing good sources while they relied on biased sources and
> been completely defeated. All it takes is two or three independent and
> determined point of view pushers and you're done. It does make you want
> to give up, fork the project, and rant and rave. Molly Ivins would be a
> good model for women editors. She didn't give up; she raised hell, and
> made everyone laugh doing it.
>
> Fred
>
> > The Wikipedia community fosters a young male zeitgeist.This IS an
> > attitude
> > problem that causes women to drop out. I have been a long time low level
> > contributor and thus have had a variety of response to efforts I have
> > made.
> > Persistence has shown me that what one editor sees as "not credible" may
> > be
> > that particular editor's world view and a contributor--CANNOT, EVER-
> > change
> > the mind of most editors. So one needs to give up on that point, even if
> > you have gone to primary sources and have them on your table in front of
> > you. You have to move on. However, this resigned way of working w/in
> > Wikipedia is not going to be the way that many people approach it.
> > Rebuffed
> > or being called "not credible" will mean we lose many contributors. It
> > should not be on the contributor to understand the editor. Contributors
> > come from all ages and societies. There are far fewer women contributing
> > than men. Why? Women take the harsh rebukes with more hurt. Really.
> >
> > I am a teacher and suggest that students write for Wikipedia. Invariably
> > the female students have been made to feel stupid by editors and won't
> > go
> > back. The male students are more likely to keep at it. This is the
> > culture
> > that Wikipedia fosters. There are many exceptions….but generally, the
> > tone
> > could be less harsh in dealing with contributors.
> >
> > ==============
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:35 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 September 2012 15:43, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I haven't had chance to look into this;
> >>
> >>
> >> That statement invalidates this statement:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Rather than whining about him we need to see the problem; it's an
> >> > attitude problem HERE.
> >>
> >>
> >> -d.
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>