Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Vinegar Monk
Requiescat In Pace
Posts: 64
kołdry
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:09 pm

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Vinegar Monk » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:34 am

Vigilant wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Vinegar Monk wrote:There were legitimate reasons to exclude Kohs in that it was established before the conference that his actions were likely to disrupt the conference.
It's absolutely amazing that you reached that conclusion given that you have absolutely no idea what Greg's actions would have been had he been at the conference. Did you use a Ouija board to gather evidence?
Greg would have given a speech that contradicted the given dogma. That cannot be allowed.

End of story.
The funny thing is my general stance on paid editing is actually probably significantly more radical than Koh's is. I think the bright line is silly and impracticable, and that sooner or later (mostly sooner) we'll need to figure out a viable way for PR practitioners to engage successfully directly editing article space in a way that minimizes harm to the encyclopedia.
A slightly soured encyclopedist

Vinegar Monk
Requiescat In Pace
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:09 pm

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Vinegar Monk » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:36 am

Notvelty wrote:
Vinegar Monk wrote:
Zoloft wrote:I suspect there are a lot of attendees that don't like their pictures being taken.
The group picture ended up being taken in a rather silly spot without room for everyone. From memory, I ducked out of it myself for that reason.
I'd take a dump.. and quickly. You're so full of it, you're about to explode.

- There is enough room in that picture for twice that number of people
- That's without moving the tables

And I won't even start on what's wrong with there being more space than that elsewhere in the room.

How about you start off again, only this time do it without lying.
There were plenty of places a full group picture could've comfortably been taken, but the people organizing the group photo picked a rather awkward space, and I didn't feel like going to the effort to restage the shot. Anyway, tata, until the next time I pop by.

In the mean time Viggie, please try to come up with something better than "Gormless." Even if it has to involve unicorns again or something.
A slightly soured encyclopedist

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:41 am

Vinegar Monk wrote:Kelly, are you actually suggesting that I've acquired secret access to mysterious information (which can be summed up "multiple conference attendees felt threatened by Greg's behavior") through avoiding drama?
If you think that that's what I'm suggesting, then you should give serious thought to surrendering your degree from Berkeley. I would have expected someone from that august institution to have some semblance of critical reading and critical thinking skills.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:45 am

Vinegar Monk wrote:In the mean time Viggie, please try to come up with something better than "Gormless." Even if it has to involve unicorns again or something.
I was just thinking we need an animated 'wanking' emoticon, but in the meantime this lovely illustration from Wikipedia should do.
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:55 am

Kelly Martin wrote:
Vinegar Monk wrote:Kelly, are you actually suggesting that I've acquired secret access to mysterious information (which can be summed up "multiple conference attendees felt threatened by Greg's behavior") through avoiding drama?
If you think that that's what I'm suggesting, then you should give serious thought to surrendering your degree from Berkeley. I would have expected someone from that august institution to have some semblance of critical reading and critical thinking skills.
What you (Kelly, that is) wrote was this:
It's quite common in cults for people who have "access" to visibly display that they have it and you don't and if you want to ever have access too you will need to keep your nose clean and follow the rules and someday you too may be chosen to have access.
I agree that it should have been obvious to Mr. Gorman that you were not referring to "avoiding drama" when using the phrase "keep your nose clean and follow the rules." On Wikipedia, following the rules actually means creating drama, and keeping one's nose clean means "don't contradict the admins." You can obviously create (or at least participate in) shitloads of drama on WP without contradicting a single admin, so I'm afraid I also must join you in calling for Mr. Gorman to surrender (or for UC Berkeley to rescind) his degree, without delay.

Vinegar Monk
Requiescat In Pace
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:09 pm

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Vinegar Monk » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:13 am

I agree that it should have been obvious to Mr. Gorman that you were not referring to "avoiding drama" when using the phrase "keep your nose clean and follow the rules." On Wikipedia, following the rules actually means creating drama, and keeping one's nose clean means "don't contradict the admins." You can obviously create (or at least participate in) shitloads of drama on WP without contradicting a single admin, so I'm afraid I also must join you in calling for Mr. Gorman to surrender (or for UC Berkeley to rescind) his degree, without delay.
If you think I don't regularly contradict admins (starting years before I was an admin,) then you don't follow what I do on-wiki very closely, which for some reason is vaguely comforting. Even by your slightly perverse definitions of 'keeping your nose clean and following the rules,' I don't fit the model very well.
A slightly soured encyclopedist

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:41 am

I don't see that anyone here linked to the ongoing discussion of coverage of the Great Wikiconference Controversy of 2014, on Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies. (T-H-L). I did cover this in the Sekrit Member Forum here.

There is a "informal RfC" on the talk page. I like to look at how people vote, and weight the votes by some standard. For example, Wikipedia Rule Number One implies that someone who is truly working to improve the project will Ignore All Rules and will therefore have a substantial block log.

So, first raw votes, from this permanent link.

Ah, first thing I see is that Kevin Gorman just combined two separate sections. In other words, he recontexted standing votes. Naughty, naughty. He might be right, i.e., the difference between those sections was obscure, but this is tantamount to changing how people have voted. In fact, Gorman chose the forked title instead of the original oppose section title, which was parallel so that the RfC was really a Yes/No question. MONGO had added the third option. Regardless, voters supported a particular position *as stated*. Gorman has an obvious COI on this issue, very involved, it was his revert warring that caused the protection, he's the last person who should be clerking that RfC, aside from Cla68.

Voting so far, and showing blocks (my analysis), last block, pages edited, total edit count, date of first edit, and advanced permissions, if any:

Support (inclusion)

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (T-C-L), 0, n.a., 7741, 29003, Jul 01 2011
jbmurray (T-C-L) 1, 17 May 2007, 3546, 19685, May 01 2007, sysop
Cla68 (T-C-L) 9, 5 March 2013, 8646, 46232, Jan 20 2006
Wllm (T-C-L), 0, n.a., 73, 267, Jul 18 2006, WMF ED partner (that is a very advanced permission!)
Everyking (T-C-L), 19, 16 October 2007, 55126, 139,820, Feb 13 2004, sysop
Fylbecatulous (T-C-L), 0, n.a., 8,710, 11,559, Dec 10 2011
Carrite (T-C-L),
Wbm1058 (T-C-L), 0, n.a., 16948, 27933, Apr 13 2011

Neutral

EvergreenFir (T-C-L), 0, n.a., 7585, Feb 18 2013

Opposed

Ktr101 (T-C-L), 2, 23 October 2007, 47025, 94742, Oct 09 2007
Bilby (T-C-L), 0, n.a. 7193, 24452, Mar 27 2007, sysop
Obiwankenobi (T-C-L), 1, 30 September 2013, 8,865, 26,881, Jun 10 2006
MONGO (T-C-L), 8, 12 April 2008, 17,931, 62226, Jan 18, 2005
Drmies (T-C-L), 1, 29 December 2012, 64538, 159660, Aug 30 2007, sysop
Kevin Gorman (T-C-L), 0, n.a., 3841, 10205, Feb 01, 2011, sysop

I just noticed that a user who had been discussing the mess on the Incidents talk page took the matter to AN/I. Permanent link. I also noticed that Gorman was away. I.e, he was revert warring on the page, was going to leave, so he went to RfPP, to keep the page frozen while he was gone. Nice. (I see that Gorman showed up on AN/I, defending his action. It's still a fact that there were two people revert warring when he went to RfPP and he was one of them. The protecting admin shows up on AN/I and defends his action as well. He doesn't mention that it was a revert warrior who filed the request.

Gorman has a special banner on his Contributions page. Anyone know how he manages that trick?
Kevin Gorman is a campus volunteer for Environmental Justice: Race, Class, Equity, and the Environment (ESPM 163ac, SOC 137) (course talk) and Ethnic Studies 21ac: A Comparative Survey of Racial and Ethnic Groups in the U.S. (course talk).
So, right now, someone can look at his contributions, and that is at the top, and below is mostly his revert warring and tendentious argument over Kohs' exclusion from the WikiConference. Nice.

For completeness, that user complaining on AN/I about Alf.laylah.wa.laylah was

Ian.thomson (T-C-L), 1, 2 February 2011, 8,978, 26,025, Oct 15 2006

Apparently Ian is too busy on the drama boards to comment in the RfC. He had done one of the removal reverts in the Great Revert War over the Great Exclusion Debacle of 2014, as had Ktr101, and Tarc, while Alf.laylah, Volunteer Marek, and the content had been added by Wllm, that well-known troll, out to wreck Wikipedia by demonstrating how the place is run by compleat idiots, not only stupid but vicious. Then there were Cla68 and Gorman at 3RR each. Groman is still calling Cla68 a Wikipediocracy "mod." Which I don't think is true. He's a trustee, part of an advisory committee, essentially. I've never seen him take a mod action here. And it's irrelevant.

Gorman is outclassed. His edit count is very low for an administrator, he's missing gravitas. While Alf.laylah has been busy requesting edits under protection, Gorman is complaining about them, while Drmies is busy doing all those edits. Alf.laylah was a heavy editor of that page before this flap. Hey, Gorman, a hint: I'm sure you could collapse all those done requests. Apparently, though, you prefer to complain, a sign of immaturity. Don't want to see edit requests on a Talk page, don't get the page protected!

This is what I see happening. Another reliable source will mention the story, and then all this flap will have been for nothing, because opposition to inclusion will collapse completely. Almost all the opposition is depending on the excuse that

1. The major coverage was in O'Dwyers, published by J. R. O'Dwyer Company (T-H-L). Supposedly this is not reliable source. I'd disagree. On the issue, public relations, this is an independent for-profit publisher with a reputation to defend. I see no excuse to dismiss this source.
2. The O'Dwyer's article was picked up by New York Magazine, showing notability, but the mention was not deep and the article contained an obvious error.

If there is no more mention, there is an impasse. There are highly experienced editors on both sides of the issue. Some compromise is possible. This is an extension of the old Kohs story which is already on the page, so that might get a sentence. Or not.

Why was this of such interest? Well, Wllm is part of it. But I think that many had some hope that Kohs would be allowed to speak about paid editing. What, exactly, are they afraid of? Learning about paid editing from an expert would surely be of value! (There are many myths about it, such as the idea that paid editing intrinsically violates policy. Kohs is fond of pointing out how silly that is. I've been paid, and I violated no policies, nor did my client. All of my work was creating wikitext and showing the client how she could satisfy policy. She did it, disclosing her conflict of interest. Last I looked, it worked. (I was paid *after* I was banned.)

(When I was editing before the final blocks, I had declared a conflict of interest on cold fusion and followed policy. What this demonstrated was that following policy was no protection. They did not want to allow me to advise on Talk pages. Hence Koh's position makes complete sense, as long as COI disclosure is not protective.)

Kohs does claim to have many accounts. Is that a violation of policy? Well, he's not disclosing conflict of interest, and that is a violation of policy, not the accounts, per se. That's the way he does business, and it seems to work for him. As Gorman knows, the policy is unworkable, like a lot about Wikipedia. Kohs could not do business openly, so he does it covertly. I've long argued that it's much better to set up conditions that allow people to act openly, so you can make sure no harm is done.

One of the craziest actions I fomented, in the short period when I edited although blocked, was the use of the edit filter to prevent me from identifying my edits, which were being self-reverted "per ban of Abd." Thus I was really making suggested edits. Some of those suggestions were being accepted, reverted back in, and they couldn't stand that. So they blocked any mention of "Abd" in the edit summary. Then in the edit itself. It caused quite a bit of collateral damage! Abd is a very common Muslim name!

So, banned editor edits, and self-reverts, identifying himself. Now, let's stop him from identifying himself! That makes the game more interesting! Of course, as soon as they had the filter up, I stopped identifying myself, what did they expect I would do? That's when I registered one sock and used it. I wanted to find out how long it would take to be checkusered. I didn't use evasive tactics. It took quite a while and I accomplished a fair amount that stuck. More than before being blocked, in fact.

Let me put it this way. I found it easier to do what I wanted to do, being blocked, than not being blocked and trying to deal with the mass of restrictions that had been created. What stopped me was simply that I developed other interests. Not that I couldn't do it. Working in the Wikipedia salt mines wasn't worth the effort.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by EricBarbour » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:48 am

Abd wrote:Let me put it this way. I found it easier to do what I wanted to do, being blocked, than not being blocked and trying to deal with the mass of restrictions that had been created.
Congratulations. You've just rediscovered something I've been saying for years: you don't have to log into Wikipedia to control at least parts of it. Just publicly humiliate the Wikipedians off-wiki, and they'll do it for you. People on this forum, and WR before it, can cause considerable change on a WMF project, because the "insiders" there tend to be such bloody insecure, cowardly and paranoid fools.

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:03 am

Vinegar Monk wrote:Also, agreed, I'm personally more afraid of mice than of Kohs. I pretty much hate mice, and would be totally up for going out to lunch with Kohs at some point.
Well, I was warming up to Gorman, but then he made that gratuitous remark about mice, and my daughter would hate me if I didn't ritually spit on his picture. Or something like that.

She has two mice and three rats. We judge people by their reactions to these animals. There was a poor social worker from the Department of Children and Families who steeled herself to be in my daughter's room, but was so freaked out that she said that they were so ... ugly. She was terrified they might "get loose." It was tempting to say that she shouldn't worry, they hadn't eaten anyone this year and they were well-fed.

My daughter tolerated her -- barely -- because the worker brought her gifts of clothing, and other benefits, plus she had the power to yank the girl from my apartment, and didn't use it. Everyone else, all the other social workers, more than a few, and everyone at Lucy's educational facility, all think the rats are the cutest things since I don't know what. Two of the rats are very pure blue dumbos. Verrryy special. These rats are bred and raised to be completely tame, they look to humans for protection and care. The saying about them is that they are not actually comatose. I.e., they are so calm, they readily go to sleep being petted. They are smart and can respond to verbal instructions. They never bite. (Rats can chew their way out of some pretty tough enclosures, they could bite badly if they wanted to. They just don't.)

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Zoloft » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:07 am

The banner... User Preferences > Appearance > Show a link to your courses at the top of every page.

On the Courses page linked there, you can bring down a list of courses and enroll. Not many colleges are participating, but Berkeley is one.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:08 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Abd wrote:Let me put it this way. I found it easier to do what I wanted to do, being blocked, than not being blocked and trying to deal with the mass of restrictions that had been created.
Congratulations. You've just rediscovered something I've been saying for years: you don't have to log into Wikipedia to control at least parts of it. Just publicly humiliate the Wikipedians off-wiki, and they'll do it for you. People on this forum, and WR before it, can cause considerable change on a WMF project, because the "insiders" there tend to be such bloody insecure, cowardly and paranoid fools.
I didn't just rediscover it, Eric. I wrote about this on Wikipedia Review years ago, that being blocked was being promoted.

I'll say, though, that I'm still saddened by the betrayal of the wiki ideals. For a long time, there was an active core in Wikipedia that held those ideals. They were burned out, shoved out, or just gave up. I watched it disappear.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:10 am

Vinegar Monk wrote:If you think I don't regularly contradict admins (starting years before I was an admin,) then you don't follow what I do on-wiki very closely, which for some reason is vaguely comforting. Even by your slightly perverse definitions of 'keeping your nose clean and following the rules,' I don't fit the model very well.
Admittedly I don't follow what you or anyone else does on Wikipedia very closely, but at the same time, "don't contradict an admin" is very different from "don't contradict the admins."

In this case, however, I'd accept that your having personally been at the conference (in conjunction with your being an admin, and probably participating in related IRC sessions and e-mail exchanges in advance of the event) would have been reason enough to include you in the discussion of how Wikimedia NYC was going to explain their exclusion of Mr. Kohs without admitting that they simply didn't want contrarian views expressed at their conference. Nor do I have any doubt that the super-wonderful folks leading that discussion could find at least a dozen or so people to claim, after the fact, that they were "made uncomfortable" by the prospect of Mr. Kohs' presence there.

I'd even accept the notion that you might not see why there should be any inherent difference between how the "paid editing" issue is perceived by those who are actually editing WP for pay, and those who are trying to stop them - especially given that some people in the latter group would prefer to be doing something else with their time. Of course, if in fact you don't see why, I'm afraid that only reinforces what we're suggesting you do with your university degree.

I also don't blame the WIkipedia folks for wanting to exclude whoever they want to exclude. Nobody wants the threat of buzzkill, after all, and these conferences are basically a feel-good exercise. I only blame them for calling themselves a "charity" and allowing their donors to claim tax deductions while doing it.

Finally, as for your not knowing that the undisclosed complaint (to which you and Mr. Rutherford have referred) is a smoke tactic, and/or our not being involved in the decision to use that tactic, those I could almost believe. Unfortunately, I'm just not getting that sort of "believability vibe" from you at the moment.

:(

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:28 am

Vinegar Monk wrote:You may want to re-read that series of tweets, and also consult a lawyer on what constitutes defamation.
You may want to consult your mother on what constitutes being an arrogant prick.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Sparky
Critic
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 3:40 am

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Sparky » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:52 am

Vinegar Monk wrote: It may be more remembered by *you* for that than anything else Cla, but you were both not at the conference, don't seem to give two shits about Wikipedia except to stir up drama, and tend to, er, pretty much just focus on the dramatic aspects of anything. Which is sad, because you used to both write high quality content and remember most of our sourcing rules. Besides for those unfortunate enough to get sucked in to some WPO-generated drama, I doubt anyone will even remember Kohs was disinvited a year from now, and will instead remember the lasting connections the conference facilitated. If the kerfuffle involving Kohs ends up getting significant coverage from reliable sources, I'll gladly at it to that page myself as soon as the protection fades. As it is, one offhanded sentence in a single RS pretty much indicates that no one but Wikipediocrats really care about it, and certainly falls out of the explicitly expressed scope of the list.
I'm one of those dreaded gnomes who look over material and feel a compulsion to correct obvious grammatical errors. Your first use of 'both' above is followed by more than two alternatives. Your second use of the word is correct, which leads me to believe that you may actually know how to use the word but, perhaps, you originally had only two points for the first sentence.

I would be curious to know how many unique views the various threads mentioning the exclusion of Kohs have had. I would wager that they run in the thousands by now. Those thousands of people will remember this event more for the exclusion of Kohs than for the nights of debauchery community interaction that you described in your other posts here.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by EricBarbour » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:29 am

thekohser wrote:
Vinegar Monk wrote:You may want to re-read that series of tweets, and also consult a lawyer on what constitutes defamation.
You may want to consult your mother on what constitutes being an arrogant prick.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:34 am

I wonder what all the Wikipediots who say that O'Dwyer PR is not a reliable source would say about the New York Times having called it "the bible of the public relations profession"?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:03 am

Vinegar Monk wrote:In the mean time Viggie, please try to come up with something better than "Gormless." Even if it has to involve unicorns again or something.
I think you might have the wrong person.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Cedric
Habitué
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:01 am
Wikipedia User: Edeans
Wikipedia Review Member: Cedric
Actual Name: Eddie Singleton
Location: God's Ain Country

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Cedric » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:31 am

Vigilant wrote:
Vinegar Monk wrote:In the mean time Viggie, please try to come up with something better than "Gormless." Even if it has to involve unicorns again or something.
I think you might have the wrong person.
I know that he does. But then, this is the sort of thing that can happen when posting while hyperventilating. Maybe this can calm things:

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:52 am

OK Kevin Gorman (which is an obvious anagram of Kevin Gorman, yes), now concedes that when he said the New York Law School were ‘perfectly happy’ to have a friendly space policy in place, by which I took him to mean that this had been discussed with the senior management of the school and agreed to, what he actually meant was that there were guards checking conference badges (which is standard procedure in any large city). And he says he is ‘relatively certain’ they had been told about the ban of Kohs.

OK.

But we still have this:
Vinegar Monk wrote:There were legitimate reasons to exclude Kohs in that it was established before the conference that his actions were likely to disrupt the conference. I'm not going to get in to the reasons that don't directly involve me (and I lol at the reasons involving me because I am used to e-trolls,) but if nothing else, under WMNYC's written friendly space policy, Kohs calling me various nasty names on Twitter during the event would've been sufficient grounds to exclude him had they made me uncomfortable (and plenty of his other behavior did make people significantly uncomfortable; and no, I'm not revealing what, because I don't what Kohs to know when he's actually successfully trolled someone.) Most WM affiliate safe space policies are based on adaptations of the Ada Iniatives model policy, and are designed to promote an environment of open discussion that's basically a 180 turn from how on-wiki discussions normally work. If you watch Sumana's keynote (writeup in the upcoming signpost, video and transcript already available,) you may have a better understanding of why WM affiliates to tend to use stronger in-person friendly space policies than any of our line sites do.
OK you don't want to talk about these legitimate reasons and other stuff that Kohs supposedly did. This implies to me that you know of them. Yes?
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

Cla68
Habitué
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:43 pm
Wikipedia User: Cla68

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Cla68 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:55 am

Sparky wrote:
Vinegar Monk wrote: It may be more remembered by *you* for that than anything else Cla, but you were both not at the conference, don't seem to give two shits about Wikipedia except to stir up drama, and tend to, er, pretty much just focus on the dramatic aspects of anything. Which is sad, because you used to both write high quality content and remember most of our sourcing rules. Besides for those unfortunate enough to get sucked in to some WPO-generated drama, I doubt anyone will even remember Kohs was disinvited a year from now, and will instead remember the lasting connections the conference facilitated. If the kerfuffle involving Kohs ends up getting significant coverage from reliable sources, I'll gladly at it to that page myself as soon as the protection fades. As it is, one offhanded sentence in a single RS pretty much indicates that no one but Wikipediocrats really care about it, and certainly falls out of the explicitly expressed scope of the list.
I'm one of those dreaded gnomes who look over material and feel a compulsion to correct obvious grammatical errors. Your first use of 'both' above is followed by more than two alternatives. Your second use of the word is correct, which leads me to believe that you may actually know how to use the word but, perhaps, you originally had only two points for the first sentence.

I would be curious to know how many unique views the various threads mentioning the exclusion of Kohs have had. I would wager that they run in the thousands by now. Those thousands of people will remember this event more for the exclusion of Kohs than for the nights of debauchery community interaction that you described in your other posts here.
Kevin, as far as I know, there are currently only two secondary sources discussing your conference. One is the press release about Kohs' ban, and the other is the New York magazine article, which also mentions the ban, and then focuses on the personal idiosyncrasies of several of the attendees rather than the substance of the presentation agenda and any "lasting connections" that went on. So, any journalist or interested parties who search the Internet will find mention of this incident in these two sources and will naturally be curious to find more about it. Perhaps they will check the list of Wikipedia controversies in WP, and notice that WP insiders censored mention of it, and alarm bells, klaxons, and rotating light beacons will go off.

Anyway, your perspective on the conference, indicated by your "lasting connections" remark, shows that your perspective is as an insider. My perspective, since I'm focusing on the press coverage, is one of an outsider. If you want WP to succeed by being accepted or gaining credibility and adherents among the general public, then an outsider's view is more important and what you should be concerned about. With WP's hemorrhaging of dedicated editors, such as myself, the project is in danger of eventual failure and it needs more interest by outsiders and thus, more recruits in order to reverse that trend.

When you ban someone from your festive gala on spurious reasons, it makes you all look like an exclusionary club that is afraid of diversity of opinion. That is NOT the image that a project supposedly based on crowd-sourcing should be projecting.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Hex » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:30 am

Abd wrote: I'll say, though, that I'm still saddened by the betrayal of the wiki ideals. For a long time, there was an active core in Wikipedia that held those ideals. They were burned out, shoved out, or just gave up. I watched it disappear.
A lot of us did.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
eagle
Eagle
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by eagle » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:19 pm

Vinegar Monk wrote:I doubt anyone will even remember Kohs was disinvited a year from now, and will instead remember the lasting connections the conference facilitated. If the kerfuffle involving Kohs ends up getting significant coverage from reliable sources, I'll gladly at it to that page myself as soon as the protection fades. As it is, one offhanded sentence in a single RS pretty much indicates that no one but Wikipediocrats really care about it, and certainly falls out of the explicitly expressed scope of the list.
Perhaps Mr. Vinegar Monk does not understand how academic institutions operate. They give conference organizers a reasonable time to offer up their explanation for what appears to be a transgression. Absent a suitable explanation, they act accordingly. Does WikiConference USA really want to carry the baggage of showing no regard for freedom inquiry and the norms of academic freedom? I would hope that a public explanation is forthcoming, otherwise the conference comes across as party-time for a high school clique instead of a serious forum for discussion of important issues.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:29 pm

eagle wrote:
Vinegar Monk wrote:I doubt anyone will even remember Kohs was disinvited a year from now, and will instead remember the lasting connections the conference facilitated. If the kerfuffle involving Kohs ends up getting significant coverage from reliable sources, I'll gladly at it to that page myself as soon as the protection fades. As it is, one offhanded sentence in a single RS pretty much indicates that no one but Wikipediocrats really care about it, and certainly falls out of the explicitly expressed scope of the list.
Perhaps Mr. Vinegar Monk does not understand how academic institutions operate. They give conference organizers a reasonable time to offer up their explanation for what appears to be a transgression. Absent a suitable explanation, they act accordingly. Does WikiConference USA really want to carry the baggage of showing no regard for freedom inquiry and the norms of academic freedom? I would hope that a public explanation is forthcoming, otherwise the conference comes across as party-time for a high school clique instead of a serious forum for discussion of important issues.
They're not going to say a single word, probably in mortal terror of the prospect of Satan's Legion of Lawyers (Satan does have the best lawyers after all) ascending from the lake of fire to serve them each with $1.6 trillion punitive damage suits for having denied Satan's Son admission to their festivities.

This is known as "stonewalling"...

How about it, New York Brad? Satan's Legion is no match for your expertise in the black art of jurisprudence, so you know you have nothing to fear... And you did insert yourself into this mess under your own volition. So how about it? Is Mr. Kohs not owed at least an explanation??? And an apology??? And a check for $5.30???

RfB

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:10 pm

So, shortly after saying that he wasn't throwing in the towel, Wllm threw in the towel.
Forget about it

I'll admit that I have been absolutely amazed and confused at some of the things people have said and done in this debate. I got me to wondering: What am I missing? I looked through everything that has been said thus far, and about halfway through the first unbearably silly thread it occurred to me: Of course! the big picture! I don't care about getting this controversy on this list enough to waste any more of my time on it, let alone everyone else's. So let's just walk away from it. It wasn't there before I added it, and it won't be there after we all get back to doing something worthwhile. There are definitely debates worth having. This just isn't one of them. ,Wil (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Wllm, if you had not added this, someone else might well have. You are "amazed and confused" because you are still largely clueless about Wikipedia. That, by the way, is totally normal and to be expected for someone new. Wikipedia might as well have been designed to be confusing. Let's get some things straight.

Those opposed to inclusion are basically making a series of arguments, but these arguments are not teased out, distinguished, so the controversy can be difficult to follow. The following is my analysis of the arguments.

1. It's not true. I.e, there is no controversy. The exclusion was no big deal. Nobody cares about it enough to waste time on it. This is very obviously a POV position, it is not based on reliable source, it is background opinion. Related to it is a second argument, which most have sanely avoided, but it was made.

2. The conference organizers did nothing wrong. Again, a POV, and this is obviously controversial. I'm not claiming that they *did* something wrong, but that there is clearly controversy over that, and there are many long-time experienced Wikipedians, some with advanced privileges, who think that the exclusion was downright stupid, harming Wikipedia's reputation. This is essentially *confirming* that there is a controversy. I.e., it's true. Which does not itself allow or require inclusion.

Remember, facts are *always* independent of conclusions. POV pushers will argue against obvious fact because they don't like a conclusion that might be drawn from it. Those who are neutral or who seek neutrality will accept facts, regardless, because fact is fact no matter what we make of it. Accepting a fact is not accepting conclusions that might be drawn from the fact, that is a separate issue, because there are other facts and differing weights to be placed, etc. However, if people cannot agree on fact, there is little hope of consensus. That's why mediation process attempts to determine agreed-upon fact, first. Like, folks, *what actually happened?* Evidence?

3. There is no reliable source for it. One of the first things that newbies need to learn is that Wikipedia is not based on truth, but on verifiability. Truth is an arguable issue, related to how fact is presented. Because POV-pushing infected the core on Wikipedia, the "administrative cabal," what I'm going to say is normative, not necessarily actual practice. If something is found in reliable source, and is not already covered, it can be noted in Wikipedia, somewhere, and many would say that it should be. It is part of the "sum of human knowledge." But it might not be true, and editors may know that, so they will report it without implying that it is true. "According to X, Jimbo was born on Y.[ref] However, Jimbo himself claimed that he was born on Z."[ref] -- and the latter could be an example where a primary source may be used, if editorial consensus settles there. (Someone might adduce a photo of a birth certificate; again, primary source. Not notable, basically. Sometimes allowed, and not offensive if allowed, if the claim is verifiable. The claim is not that Jimbo was born on a certain date, but that such and such a date was reported in such and such a source.)

The opposers on the list page mostly assume that O'Dwyer's is not a reliable source. The basis for that assumption is unclear to me. The article is indeed an editorial, but fact appears to have been carefully reported. I'm not sure whether the article being by the principal at J. R. O'Dwyer Company (T-H-L) adds or subtracts from the reliability. I.e, was it fact-checked? My guess is that it probably was, because it's remarkably free from obvious error.

The opposers deepen the argument by saying that there should be coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That is a notability standard, applicable to allowing an article on a topic, not an inclusion standard. It is routine for content to be included in articles that is referenced only from a single reliable source. If there is some doubt about it, it may be attributed, "according to...." Notice: nobody among the supporters of inclusion is arguing that there should be an independent article!

4. It's not notable. However, being found in reliable source, even once, is evidence of notability. O'Dwyer obviously considered this notable, and he is independent and responsible, i.e, if he publishes useless fluff, he can suffer real-world consequences. This is, indeed, at the core of how Wikipedia works, it depends on decisions of notability by people who are financially or reputationally harmed by error in judgment as to the interest people will have in a topic. To be reliable source, the publisher must be *independent* of the topic. Now, nobody is completely independent of any topic, it's all relative. Suffice it to say that O'Dwyers is sufficiently independent. There was, so far, little consideration of this in the discussion and, Wllm, you certainly have not understood it.

The notability was confirmed by New York Magazine's reference to the O'Dwyer's article. Obviously, that author, and the editors of New York Magazine, thought the incident worth mentioning. That mention alone can justify inclusion, given the *fact.* That's back to issue 1. This is a controversy, *actually*, and the discussion makes that clear.

So what is going on? It's obvious. This is POV-pushing on display, what I used to call "MPOV pushing," i.e, Majority Point of View pushing. "Majority" here refers to "majority of editors," not "majority of experts" or "majority of people on the planet," And, really, it refers to "majority of the core," those who are very involved in the project and in administration. In fact, here, it is not clear what the actual majority opinion is, but the POV-pushers believe that their view is obvious, and, besides, it's true. No big deal. And, Wllm, you just joined them with your comment quoted above. You decided that this wasn't important enough for inclusion, because "I don't care." Yet you cared enough about the exclusion to start a petition drive, and to ping Jimbo about it. And you were right. That is, there was an opportunity there for some shift to occur. However, confused about the response, you recognized that you were out of your depth, and you bailed. Not a good sign, Wllm. If you are out of your depth, find some solid ground, let go, stop stirring the pot, and watch what happens. You will learn. Advice, Wllm, from someone who also has been diagnosed with ADHD.

This incident -- the article flap, not the exclusion itself -- displays the fundamental Wikipedia problem, lack of decision process that efficiently finds true consensus. Such process, even when facilitated by experts, can take a lot of discussion. Most people will bail from it, it can be far too much work. But it only takes two or a handful of people, willing to participate and represent the points of view.

Yet true consensus is essential to the Wikipedia mission, because true consensus is the only relatively objective criterion for neutrality. (I.e., we would sanely *measure* consensus and thus neutrality, instead of assuming it as an absolute state, which was one of the naive assumptions underneath Wikipedia process.)

In the presence of massive prior judgment, this can take teasing out agreement, step by step. I did it on Wikipedia on a few occasions, and I was in the middle of doing it with a protected cold fusion article when I was banned. It was working, when stopped by an admin who hated reading all those words. Indeed, I'd say, it always worked, when it was allowed. But it takes a lot of work, which means a lot of reading and writing, and this conflicts with wiki, i.e., quick.

There is a way to make the process far, far more efficient, and an element of it was proposed simply as an experiment in a possible file structure, WP:PRX (T-H-L). It was amazing to see that process, I was pretty new at the time. Wikipedia space proposals are traditionally not deleted, they are deprecated. But they tried to delete this one! It was closed by a non-admin, over which there was a huge flap and a Deletion Review. It was reopened and closed the same, quite contrary to the pile of Delete votes, arguing WP:NOTAVOTE (T-H-L), believing that PRX was about voting -- it wasn't -- and who then screamed when the close was contrary to the votes. I learned a lot about Wikipedia!

Basically, Wikipedia set up policies and practices that are intrinsically contradictory, or at least that are very difficult to reconcile.

Welcome to the asylum, Wllm. Really, there are at least two asylums, one there and one here. There are psychological theories that psychosis and neurosis arise from contradictory assumptions, where the person cannot simply discard them or recognize them as dominating assumptions; instead the assumptions are taken as fact, truth. These may be assumptions, for example, about the way the world should be.

I'm not going to describe here how PRX would make discussion far more efficient, that would deserve a topic of its own.

As I've mentioned -- and so have many others -- if more reliable source appears on this incident, it is likely to be included in the article. In the absence of that, I have no opinion as to what will happen, it could go either way. Mods, is there some way we could arrange to sell popcorn?
:popcorn:
Hey, I think Wikipediocracy should carry advertising. Greg, would you advertise here? Selected ads, of course, chosen to be of interest to the readers.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:26 pm

This is ethically sketchy...
There's a difference between "My flight to the conference was paid for, as was my hostel" and "I was paid to attend the conference." If I was supposed to be paid to attend the conference, I should go bug someone about my check. FTR: I don't view attending a conference on a scholarship as a significant COI in this discussion - probably one about at the same level as the swarm of Koh's friends that have shown up here from Wikipediocracy. Btw, still curious why your formatting of this discussion has both involved so many separate sections and seemingly been structured to avoid bringing in editors not connected to the issue in any way. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I wonder what UC Berkeley's stance on this is.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:51 pm

Cla68 wrote:One is the press release about Kohs' ban...
O'Dwyer's article is not a press release. The "PR" in ODwyerPR.com stands for "public relations", not "press release".


Vigilant wrote:I wonder what UC Berkeley's stance on this is.
There's a difference between "My flight to the conference was paid for, as was my hostel" and "I was paid to attend the conference." If I was supposed to be paid to attend the conference, I should go bug someone about my check. FTR: I don't view attending a conference on a scholarship as a significant COI in this discussion - probably one about at the same level as the swarm of Koh's friends that have shown up here from Wikipediocracy. Btw, still curious why your formatting of this discussion has both involved so many separate sections and seemingly been structured to avoid bringing in editors not connected to the issue in any way. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I would hope that Berkeley would stand by 6th- or 7th-grade-level ability to form a correct possessive case of a proper noun that ends with "s", because Gorman has repeatedly shown that he does not possess that aptitude.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:36 pm

thekohser wrote:
Cla68 wrote:One is the press release about Kohs' ban...
O'Dwyer's article is not a press release. The "PR" in ODwyerPR.com stands for "public relations", not "press release".


Vigilant wrote:I wonder what UC Berkeley's stance on this is.
There's a difference between "My flight to the conference was paid for, as was my hostel" and "I was paid to attend the conference." If I was supposed to be paid to attend the conference, I should go bug someone about my check. FTR: I don't view attending a conference on a scholarship as a significant COI in this discussion - probably one about at the same level as the swarm of Koh's friends that have shown up here from Wikipediocracy. Btw, still curious why your formatting of this discussion has both involved so many separate sections and seemingly been structured to avoid bringing in editors not connected to the issue in any way. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I would hope that Berkeley would stand by 6th- or 7th-grade-level ability to form a correct possessive case of a proper noun that ends with "s", because Gorman has repeatedly shown that he does not possess that aptitude.
There you go again, now you're starting an edit war over whether Kohs' or Kohs's is the preferred spelling...

RfB

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:53 pm

Abd wrote:I don't see that anyone here linked to the ongoing discussion of coverage of the Great Wikiconference Controversy of 2014, on Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies. (T-H-L).
Ugh. That resolves to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_ ... troversies. With a period. Needs to be Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L). Sorry for wasting the time of anyone who followed that link.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:07 pm

Hex wrote:
Abd wrote: I'll say, though, that I'm still saddened by the betrayal of the wiki ideals. For a long time, there was an active core in Wikipedia that held those ideals. They were burned out, shoved out, or just gave up. I watched it disappear.
A lot of us did.
Oh come on, Hex, aren't you still a teenager or something?
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:26 pm

Meanwhile: http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/25 ... ,O'Dwyer's has noticed the flap. Basically, by trying to keep it out, you drew attention to it. O'Dwyers is a respected publication, as far as I can tell. Where the idea came from that they don't like Wikipedia, I don't know. However, it's common for reputable publications to write things about Wikipedia that Wikipedians don't like, and Wikipedians are prone to assume that the world thinks like they do. Gorman, you come off like a complete ass. In a reliable source that is not about to disappear, like you fondly imagine.

Readers may not be able to tell, but you have been so incautious with the truth that we might as well say, liar, liar, pants on fire. You ascribed the sentiment for inclusion as being from a "WPO mod," which does not appear to be the case. It came originally from Wllm, not Cla68, who is not a mod here, but a trustee (which is a very different role, and that whole line of argument was totally irrelevant to the issue, so you are one of those Wikipedians who fill up talk pages with irrelevant argument. Which is part of the Wikipedia problem.

I.e ..., let me make this simple: you are part of the problem, and whether or not you are part of the solution will depend on choices you make. You could rapidly become irrelevant.

Tell, me, "source fairly well known to not like us," does that bear on what is reliable source? Fairly well known, first of all, to *whom*? But, secondly, I don't see anywhere in the reliable source criteria, "Has no negative opinion of Wikipedia." But it seems to be on your internal list. I.e., you are a *POV pusher,* and don't know the difference between your own opinions and fact, on the first level, and on Wikipedia source requirements, on the second level.

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:33 pm

O'Dwyer's had another story on the WikiConference, I haven't seen mentioned here. This first story did not mention Kohs. According to the story, O'Dwyer's staffers attended WikiConference meetings. That story was not written by Jack O'Dwyer, but apparently by a staffer.

Now, professional journalism note: the story seemed rigorously neutral, and totally accurate. I've seen much worse from publications with high reputation. There is no sign of bias against Wikipedia, as claimed -- without any evidence at all, only the butt-smoke from Gorman.

("Butt-smoke" is a technical term used in the journalism profession. Right?)

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:34 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:How about it, New York Brad? Satan's Legion is no match for your expertise in the black art of jurisprudence, so you know you have nothing to fear... And you did insert yourself into this mess under your own volition. So how about it? Is Mr. Kohs not owed at least an explanation??? And an apology??? And a check for $5.30???

RfB
I already suggested this to Brad. Radio silence descended once again.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:40 pm

Correct link: http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/25 ... pedia.html

Be careful of putting commas after links :)
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:40 pm

Abd wrote:<fixifyin' a link>
The story

Edit: I see Peter beat me too it.

Local snapshot
Tue., Jun. 10, 2014
New York Mag's O'Dwyer Link Roils Wikipedia
By Jack O'Dwyer


New York magazine, a "reliable source" to Wikipedia, has upset WP editors by linking to the odwyerpr.com coverage of WP critic Gregory Kohs being banned from the May 30-June 1 conference.

Image
kevin gorman


Kohs received an e-mail May 29 from New York lawyer Ira Matetsky of Ganfer & Shore saying he was banned not only as a panelist but as an observer. The e-mail said:

“The organizers of Wikiconference USA 2014 have determined that based on a number of considerations, you are not invited to attend the conference. Your name has been removed from the list of registered attendees and will not be included on the list of attendees being provided to the venue.
Please note that this is not any one individual's decision but a group decision, for which I am acting as messenger/scrivener. The decision is final and is not subject to reconsideration or appeal.”

The banning of Kohs caught the attention of New York magazine Intelligencer reporter Jessica Pressler, who referred to it June 6 by saying Kohs was "allegedly" banned from attending.

This upset supporters of Kohs who wrote on the "Talk" pages of Wikipedia that there was nothing "alleged" at all about the banning and WP was remiss in not reporting it in its regular pages since it was referenced in a "reliable source."

Arguing against allowing the Kohs incident to make it to the regular pages was Kevin Gorman, WP's first "Wikipedian-in-Residence at a U.S. university" (The University of California at Berkeley).

Gorman, who was at the conference despite have suffered a head injury before traveling to New York, helps students to be "more responsible and effective users" of WP. He is also working with the archives, libraries and museums of UC Berkeley to have their content released under a free license so it can be used in the WP Commons, the WP Foundation’s image, video and audio library.

Gorman notes that more than 550 million people view WP every month and 30,000 edit the English version of the site more than five times a month. Most are “white folks with tech backgrounds,” he says. “They write about what they’re interested in and have introduced a systemic bias into WP. If something isn’t on WP, it’s approaching a form of erasure, so we want to combat that by bringing in more editors.”

Gorman: One RS Not Enough

Gorman argued on the Talk pages that more references in “reliable sources” were needed besides New York the mag piece that referenced odwyerpr.com. He said the O’Dwyer story had “multiple factual errors” but did not name any. He also added that O’Dwyer’s “is a “source fairly well known to not like us.”

The Kohs’ criticism of leaders of the event, while not named, could be unfair to them, Gorman further noted, raising the issue of WP:BLP (Biographies of Living People).

WP policy is to be extra careful about damaging the reputations of living people.

Several Wikipedians took issue with Gorman on the Talk page, saying refusal to report the boycott against Kohs “smacks of self-censorship and cover-up” (Alison).

Another contributor (alf laylah wa laylah) said it was a “shame” that WP interfered with “an ongoing discussion and you’re removing sourced material.”

Wrote Ian Thomson: “New York mag is a reliable source so when it chooses to cite an unreliable source [O’Dwyer’s] we may rely on their judgment that the incident is controversial. That is the only question at stake here: do reliable sources see it as controversial?”

Gorman commented, “I love the number of people who are trying to get Kohs included as a controversy on an article with a scope this large who are not bothering to make any policy-based comment on this Talk page (or frequently any comment at all). “

He said more than one “RS” should be required "or at least substantial overage in one good RS (and one line is not substantial."
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:45 pm

Does that tip this issue for List of WP controversies or do the editors need to write a few more articles to satisfy the cowards on en.wp?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by EricBarbour » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:52 pm

Vigilant wrote:Does that tip this issue for List of WP controversies or do the editors need to write a few more articles to satisfy the cowards on en.wp?
A mention in one more media outlet, and then Kevin is helpless (which see, he's already beyond help anyway, that's a joke, son)

Did anyone mention the savage irony of this situation? As recently as last year, the Wiki-nits were scouring the web for information to put into a biography of Greg--because they hated him so much, and repeatedly tried to defame him. Now, eight years after the first attempts, instead of defaming him, they're trying to cover up one of their dumbest dirty tricks, aimed at Greg. Instead of rolling around in it.

And oh, there's a smoking gun in that AFD:
Keep The sources would be sufficient for anyone unconnected with WP., and the article is as it should be primarily concerned with the public aspects of his life. Deleting this is a abject and disgraceful surrender , a foolish admission that WP is incapable of editing on controversial BLP subjects. That's what our enemies try to say. NPOV is meaningless when it translates as NPOV only up to the point where it become difficult. Freedom from censorship is meaningless if we self-censor because we think it's too hard to be objective. .If we are not capable of editing something, the solution is to become capable. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:14 pm

So, I thought, O'Dwyers seems to be regularly publishing a wealth of material about notable individuals, companies, and events. Surely there would be extensive linking to the site. There are links. Not extensive, but still not just a couple. 115 of them. I suspect they are being under-utilized.

Gorman started the flap with, in his second revert, "A crappy PR outlet and a one sentence mention in nymag does not a notable controversy make." With that edit summary, he gratuitously libelled them. First of all, they are not a "PR outlet," at least not in the newsletter function. Crappy PR outlets print press releases. They don't assign staffers to attend a conference, to investigate, etc. O'Dwyer's, so far, is doing a far better job than Gorman of writing about the incident. Gorman essentially lies about it and the editorial flap on Wikipedia. They don't.

And Gorman imagines himself as an academic. He's got a long, long way to go, if he starts learning fast.

Is this a "notable controversy"? Well, it's a *noted* controversy, noted in reliable source, sitting somewhere in the grey zone where one might assert one side or the other without thereby being utterly ridiculous. Definitely it is a *real* controversy, that's utterly obvious. And there are plenty of situations in the List page that (as some have noted) are not actually controversies. This is a controversy on two levels, very obviously. First, was the exclusion proper or wise? That is not a fact, it is an interpretation and therefore can be, and obviously is, controversial. Secondly, should it be included in the List? That, as well, is not a fact, it is an interpretation and, obviously, given that we have highly experienced editors lined up on both sides, it is, again, controversial.

"Nothing to see here, move along" is a famous cabal comment, they might as well have a template set up for it. "There is no controversy here," and they prove it by blocking or banning anyone who disagrees. Thus, they create reality, i.e., that the only people who disagree are "trolls and banned users." And, as Gorman has, they continue to make this claim even when respected editors, not banned, disagree. They simply ignore facts that they don't like.

And that is exactly how Wikipedia has gone down the tubes. People like Gorman, and then others like Wllm who decide that it's not important. How about some real controversy, like Israel v Palestine, etc?"

My point is this: if Wikipedia cannot handle tempests in teapots, it cannot handle hurricanes rolling through human communities, wrecking people's lives.

It cannot handle real-world controversies like cold fusion, where the stakes could literally involve a trillion dollars a year in value or lost value. (I'm not exaggerating! I know the science, and cold fusion is real, that's not in doubt in the journals any more. Whether or not it is *practical*, i.e., whether or not it could open up to the energy future of humanity or not, I do not know. Real and practical are not at all the same thing. But if it is real, it *might* be practical. Is it worth investigating?)

Wikipedia gets it wrong, and commonly, whenever some position or point of view, among experts, isn't popular among the cabal.

Here, we have PR *experts* discussing the paid editing issue, and reporting on the WikiConference. But Gorman makes his personal assessment and edits tendentiously according to it, revert warring and calling down the RfPP gods. Gorman from Berkeley and Randy from Boise, not much difference. (Sorry, Randy, but you know what I mean.)

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:29 pm

Vigilant wrote:Does that tip this issue for List of WP controversies or do the editors need to write a few more articles to satisfy the cowards on en.wp?
I don't see this link as necessarily tipping the balance in a major way. It's the same source, after all. However, there are, as I've shown now, three stories in O'Dwyer's about the WikiConference, and they appear to have been carefully researched, and are neutral in tone. O'Dwyer's looks to me like Reliable Source, so the NY Magazine article is confirmation of notability. This is probably not enough for a standalone article on the Great Stupi-Head Exclusion Incident of 2014 (T-H-L), but not far from it! It is certainly enough for a brief mention in the Controversies article, particularly given that Kohs is already covered in that article; this is an extension of the same basic controversy. Or this could be mentioned in the Kohs article (i.e, MyWikiBiz (T-H-L)).

The requirement for multiple independent reliable sources, as I've pointed out, is a notability requirement for stand-alone articles, not an inclusion requirement, they are making that up. It's obvious. Single reliable sources are used commonly. In fact single unreliable sources are used, quite commonly, but that's another matter, those don't survive push and shove.

Someone might profitably take O'Dwyer's to WP:RSN (T-H-L)

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:44 pm

I just want to call attention to this post. Eric makes a brilliant point, echoing DGG. The deletion is as DGG claimed: an admission of abject failure and incapacity. Basically, the cabal knows that Wikipedia is broken, that it cannot be neutral, but won't allow it to be fixed. The "cabal" is not an intelligent community, it's a collection of knee-jerk responses, mostly, so it doesn't think this way, but underneath the oppressive responses is probably an understanding or intuition that fixing it would reduce their power.

What we can see in all these discussions is the utter arbitrariness of the decision-making. There are no clear standards, which is why these discussions become train wrecks, wasting an enormous amount of time for what, in a reasonably efficient and suited-to-purpose organization, might take a single person, handed the authority, a few minutes to decide. Maybe much less. (And maybe more, to be sure, it depends on the topic.) And then the decision would be appealable, if the organization is functional, and again, it would take minutes to decide between forks (one of the forks might be to study the matter). Etc. This could actually be done with a wiki, but it would take some missing structure. The wiki actually works this way, at a low level. It never developed the higher-level structures.

Wikipedia has an amygdala (T-H-L), but not a cerebral cortex (T-H-L).
EricBarbour wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Does that tip this issue for List of WP controversies or do the editors need to write a few more articles to satisfy the cowards on en.wp?
A mention in one more media outlet, and then Kevin is helpless (which see, he's already beyond help anyway, that's a joke, son)

Did anyone mention the savage irony of this situation? As recently as last year, the Wiki-nits were scouring the web for information to put into a biography of Greg--because they hated him so much, and repeatedly tried to defame him. Now, eight years after the first attempts, instead of defaming him, they're trying to cover up one of their dumbest dirty tricks, aimed at Greg. Instead of rolling around in it.

And oh, there's a smoking gun in that AFD:
Keep The sources would be sufficient for anyone unconnected with WP., and the article is as it should be primarily concerned with the public aspects of his life. Deleting this is a abject and disgraceful surrender , a foolish admission that WP is incapable of editing on controversial BLP subjects. That's what our enemies try to say. NPOV is meaningless when it translates as NPOV only up to the point where it become difficult. Freedom from censorship is meaningless if we self-censor because we think it's too hard to be objective. .If we are not capable of editing something, the solution is to become capable. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:18 pm

Abd wrote:Here, we have PR *experts* discussing the paid editing issue, and reporting on the WikiConference. But Gorman makes his personal assessment and edits tendentiously according to it, revert warring and calling down the RfPP gods.
Very well-put, Abd. And if this is how Gorman mishandles this sort of situation, I hate to imagine how badly he and his cronies at the WikiConference USA were (and are) handling the personal and private information being tossed around about me.

Hell, I -- just like scores of other prospective attendees of the conference -- have in my e-mail inbox the social security number, driver's license number, full name, birthdate, and home address of one female attendee from California. It's there because of the mismanagement of the prospective attendee list by the conference organizers. The woman thought she was replying to the organizing committee, when in fact she was replying to a vast slew of people who were not even going to be at the conference.

Abd wrote:Eric makes a brilliant point, echoing DGG.
I think Eric's smoking gun here is that the author was "DGG". That's David Goodman who co-chaired the fraudulently-conceived discussion panel about paid editing at the WikiConference USA. And Goodman had the nerve to vote "Keep" on a wiki-biography about me on my birthday last year!
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

Abd
Retired
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:42 pm
Wikipedia User: Abd
Wikipedia Review Member: Abd

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Abd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:37 pm

thekohser wrote:
Abd wrote:Eric makes a brilliant point, echoing DGG.
I think Eric's smoking gun here is that the author was "DGG". That's David Goodman who co-chaired the fraudulently-conceived discussion panel about paid editing at the WikiConference USA. And Goodman had the nerve to vote "Keep" on a wiki-biography about me on my birthday last year!
Aw, Greg, drop your personal attachments. His vote was principled, and the point was made in that discussion that if you wanted the bio deleted, you could ask for it, specifically, through due process. I don't know what Eric intended.

Goodman has long been one of the best administrators, in my experience. Personally, I met him briefly at WikiConference New York years ago. Dead, in person, i.e., not present. I think there is something about serious involvement in the wiki that sucks the life out of people. I was planning on spending the night in New York, but found such a total lack of connection with people that I decided to take the train back to my car and drive home. There was no there there.

I was accustomed to real human communities. I still am, that's what I prefer. This writing is how I avoid doing things I don't want to do, even though I may need to.

The only value for me in New York, then, was sitting around listening to functionaries talk about Raul654. However, Newyorkbrad was worse. He averted his eyes. My arbcom case was pending, that probably had something to do with it. However, I'd have had more human connection with a real judge in a real case.

I did speak at that Conference, explaining delegable proxy. Jimbo was taking notes, at least it looked like he was. I never brought it up with him, and he certainly never asked more about it. People always think, first, about control structure. Delegable proxy might be usable in a control structure, but, as I've written, is unproven. Where it is quite clear it would work (because I've seen all the elements of it work) is in a *communications structure*, used to generate advice. Not control.

To put this in a Montesquieuian context, control is an executive function, advice is judicial. Mixing the two is dangerous, and that is exactly what Wikipedia did.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by EricBarbour » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:39 pm

Abd wrote:Personally, I met him briefly at WikiConference New York years ago. Dead, in person, i.e., not present. I think there is something about serious involvement in the wiki that sucks the life out of people. I was planning on spending the night in New York, but found such a total lack of connection with people that I decided to take the train back to my car and drive home. There was no there there.
The only value for me in New York, then, was sitting around listening to functionaries talk about Raul654. However, Newyorkbrad was worse. He averted his eyes. My arbcom case was pending, that probably had something to do with it. However, I'd have had more human connection with a real judge in a real case.
May I quote you?
I don't know what Eric intended.
Eric intends to write the real history of Wikipedia. Honestly, with all the maggot-infested wounds exposed.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:42 pm

Abd wrote: Goodman has long been one of the best administrators, in my experience. Personally, I met him briefly at WikiConference New York years ago. Dead, in person, i.e., not present. I think there is something about serious involvement in the wiki that sucks the life out of people.
David Goodman and Dennis Brown are both on my short list of first-rate administrators. I don't always agree with DGG (paid editing, this AfD debate or that), but he's an honest man.

RfB

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:44 pm

Abd wrote:I met him briefly at WikiConference New York years ago. Dead, in person, i.e., not present. I think there is something about serious involvement in the wiki that sucks the life out of people.
So, that's just the guy that you have co-chair a discussion panel about paid editing then!
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by EricBarbour » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:52 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:David Goodman and Dennis Brown are both on my short list of first-rate administrators. I don't always agree with DGG (paid editing, this AfD debate or that), but he's an honest man.
Remember this?
Note, the article Gunther Stent was created by DGG, who was a doctoral student of Stent's. Why isn't there a Template:COI on the Stent article?

(Larry Sanger muttered in a bit of agony when I mentioned DGG to him.)
Or how about this?

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:19 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: Timbo's Rule No. 20. Nobody ever accused the cabalistas of being active builders of Wikipedia, speaking as a caste, just like nobody ever accused John D. Rockefeller and his crones of being oil workers.
From the account names given in the current Wikipedia Signpost, link here are the contribution pie charts for keynote speaker Sumana Harihareswara of the WMF:

Sumanah (T-C-L) link Established 3/10/11; 1,074 edits, of which 273 were to mainspace (25.5%).

Sharihareswara (WMF) (T-C-L) link Not searchable. Established 9/24/12. I physically counted 150 edits total, of which six (6) were to mainspace (4.0%).

And this is the person providing the ideological justification for a purge of crabby content writers for the good of the encyclopedia...

RfB

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:31 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Abd wrote: Goodman has long been one of the best administrators, in my experience. Personally, I met him briefly at WikiConference New York years ago. Dead, in person, i.e., not present. I think there is something about serious involvement in the wiki that sucks the life out of people.
David Goodman and Dennis Brown are both on my short list of first-rate administrators. I don't always agree with DGG (paid editing, this AfD debate or that), but he's an honest man.

RfB
And you said he was the 'salt of the earth' in the other thread. I haven't had much dealing with him, but on every occasion that I have, I was struck by the way he was incapable of dealing with evidence that very bad things were happening.

The latest episode is no exception. I asked him politely by email on 7 June, asking him if he knew anything of the plan to prevent Kohs coming? He never replied. It's not that he won't answer emails: we have corresponded, but only on mundane subjects. As soon as you turn to problematic matters, radio silence button gets clicked on.

Brad is exactly the same of course.

I suppose you could argue that these people are like Fortune 500 chief executives. It's fine to discuss matters which are not company related. But business is business, why should they be obliged to discuss matters which are secret and confidential.

But then Goodman is a Wikipedian, and Wikipedians don't subscribe to such principles of privilege and secrecy. The whole point of Wikipedia is that information should be free. I.e. free as in free speech, freedom of information.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:40 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Abd wrote: Goodman has long been one of the best administrators, in my experience. Personally, I met him briefly at WikiConference New York years ago. Dead, in person, i.e., not present. I think there is something about serious involvement in the wiki that sucks the life out of people.
David Goodman and Dennis Brown are both on my short list of first-rate administrators. I don't always agree with DGG (paid editing, this AfD debate or that), but he's an honest man.

RfB
And you said he was the 'salt of the earth' in the other thread. I haven't had much dealing with him, but on every occasion that I have, I was struck by the way he was incapable of dealing with evidence that very bad things were happening.

The latest episode is no exception. I asked him politely by email on 7 June, asking him if he knew anything of the plan to prevent Kohs coming? He never replied. It's not that he won't answer emails: we have corresponded, but only on mundane subjects. As soon as you turn to problematic matters, radio silence button gets clicked on.

Brad is exactly the same of course.

I suppose you could argue that these people are like Fortune 500 chief executives. It's fine to discuss matters which are not company related. But business is business, why should they be obliged to discuss matters which are secret and confidential.

But then Goodman is a Wikipedian, and Wikipedians don't subscribe to such principles of privilege and secrecy. The whole point of Wikipedia is that information should be free. I.e. free as in free speech, freedom of information.
No, I said my friend Jim Heaphy/Cullen386 was "salt of the earth." I don't know DGG as well. He seems very solid.

The stonewalling on the Kohs affair is obviously organized and probably related to legal concerns.

RfB

User avatar
Cedric
Habitué
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:01 am
Wikipedia User: Edeans
Wikipedia Review Member: Cedric
Actual Name: Eddie Singleton
Location: God's Ain Country

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Cedric » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:47 pm

Peter Damian wrote: I haven't had much dealing with him, but on every occasion that I have, I was struck by the way he was incapable of dealing with evidence that very bad things were happening.
Very similar to my impression of him. Goodman is very much Of The Body. He may not be anything like the most abusive of the wiki mandarins, but he is an enabler.

User avatar
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

Unread post by Kiefer.Wolfowitz » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:53 pm

DGG (T-C-L) rivals Jimmy Wales as the incarnation of Wikipedia, insouciance made flesh.
thekohser wrote:Note, the article Gunther Stent (T-H-L) was created by DGG (T-C-L), who was a doctoral student of Stent's. [....]
(Larry Sanger (T-C-L) muttered in a bit of agony when I mentioned DGG to him.)
Bob Dylan wrote:But you [Larry Sanger], who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears
Take the rag away from your face
Now ain’t the time for your tears
In Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) & Worm That Turned (T-C-L)'s RfC/U against me, DGG (T-C-L) stepped in to lecture me on civility towards children, accused me of being rude to new editors, etc.---after having spent 6+5 minutes on the page, later explaining that he copies his essay on the topic of kindness towards kiddies. DGG never responded to my request for evidence of this "hostility to new editors".
That was just for starters.

When DGG was warmed up, he criticized my statement that at most one of two contradictory statements can be correct. My statement of this consequence of the principle of explosion (T-H-L) [was by DGG] misquoted and judged to be incompatible with WP policy.
DGG wrote: I note his response below, that in content arguments, "only one of the views can be correct" (misquoted, sic.); since this is utterly and directly in contradiction to the basic principle of NPOV, an editor with such an attitude will be under a great handicap in discussing controversial topics at Wikipedia. That candid confession explains many of the problems--working in accordance with such an attitude inevitably leads to personal attacks and invective, and [there] is no reason why we should tolerate it.
DGG (T-C-L) 1:55 am, 27 October 2011, Thursday
DGG wrote:Giving just a little background, I understood the comment to not be about the theoretical issue, but about what should be the contents of Wikipedia articles or the outcome of discussions at Wikipedia . As Wikipedia articles do not seek to establish the truth but just to state fairly the status of the topic, in proportion to all non-splinter current opinions, it certainly does not apply to what we do here. In the context of the particular rfc, it was a side issue, but not totally unrelated to being the possible basis behind an overly argumentative approach. With regard to the general proposition in the abstract, it only applies to properly posed questions or propositions. Most discussions in real life are not of that nature. Whether any proposition can be truly such in the real world, as distinct from a subset of the real world abstracted for the purpose of discussion, is an interesting question & I do not think one to which there is any general agreement. I decided long ago in college I would not pursue such issues, because I prefer to discuss matters which need a practical conclusion of some sort in order for humans to take action. I see no reason to change my mind, but those who want to discuss it are certainly welcome to do so. I agree with Elen that it should be pursued without connection to the current rfc. DGG (T-C-L) 8:56 pm, 27 October 2011, Thursday
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: Dear logicians.
I request assistance.
RE the apologia of ... DGG: On the contrary, the RfC concerns i.a. my correction of many falsehoods in the Socialist Party of America (T-H-L) article, where biased falsehoods had been introduced e.g. by using a 4-page "history" published by the contemporary Socialist Party USA (T-H-L). One falsehood asserted that event A preceded event B, while reliable sources assert that event B preceded event A. The event was the exiting of Michael Harrington (T-H-L) (A) and the SDUSA (T-H-L)-majority having control (B).
These statements do not involve the uncertainty principle (T-H-L) or the failure of bivalence (T-H-L)in game-theoretic semantics (T-H-L) or Topos (T-H-L) theory.
Their assertions about "the real world" would have greater authority if ... DGG had ever bothered to contribute to the articles in questions, before lecturing me about irrelevancies. In DGG's case, his investing all of 11 minutes in reading the 103-kilobyte RfC (and writing his self-congratulatory sermon) and his logical fluency are responsible for the quality of his contributions. Would that his decision "not to pursue such issues" had induced due humility and caution here or in his writings at RfC.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L) 7:17 pm, 28 October 2011
Bob Dylan wrote:Now, [Larry Sanger (T-C-L)],
bury the rag deep in your face,
for now is the time for your tears.
Last edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz on Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:17 am, edited 3 times in total.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.

Post Reply