[WikiEN-l] User names

Tue Oct 14 08:42:30 UTC 2003

Toby Bartels wrote:

>Stevertigo wrote:
>
>>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, /I/ know what it means?  Do you???
>>>
>>If you dont think "Jesus is Lord!" (dont forget the
>>exclamation !) isnt inflamatory-- I dont know what to
>>tell you.
>>
>
>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".
>
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.

>>Youre usually pretty straightforward and
>>practical Toby--in this case you seem to be making a
>>strange quasi-principled argument against a policy --
>>let me repeat it-- 1. Wikipedians can vote to change a
>>username.  2. There are no standards, save the will of
>>the community.
>>
>
>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.
>
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.

>>The second one require some wikitrust
>>or better yet: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikifaith
>>
>
>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.  
>
I have more faith in the wiki process than in some of its users.

>>So, maybe LD's experiment was useful after all-- but
>>only to prove my original point (which isnt really
>>"my" point alone, is it-- 19 to 5 vote ) that "WP
>>reserves the right to rename you. "  ie:
>>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toby_Bartels/namechange
>>
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?

>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.
>
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.

>I suspect that the world would be a better place
>if we didn't have the technical means to enforce some rules.
>
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.

>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!
>
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.

>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..
>
But still an ideal.  I often wonder about the sort of vision that 
sustains the participation of some Wikipedians.

>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.
>
It's interesting that the matter of Wikifaith should come up in the 
context of one user's faith-bound name.

>Instituting banning and page protection -- even if necessary,
>in the end, because of vandalism -- can be a bad thing too,
>like anything that interferes with the wiki process
>(in which I have so much faith).
>
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