Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

[SB_Johnny]

<snipped posts about how Kevin is the most mavericky maverick dude you'll ever meet, and also the nicest and hardest working too>

I've really got nothing to say to all that. If the WMF changes their policy to require some degree of tact from their WiRs and consequentially you end up being a homeless guy in a few years, will you be surprised and/or disappointed?

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

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

And what becomes of the salt of the earth after it has lost its saltiness?

FTFU: DGG seems intellectually stolid.

[everyking]

NYB is not amused by the controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =612441768 "No further time and effort should at present be spent on this feigned and manufactured controversy. It appears that this article and its talkpage are being used to emphasize a few editors' strong personal disagreement with the Wikiconference's decision to disinvite Mr. Kohs, which is not the proper purpose of mainspace." He also notes that he has "greater knowledge of the relevant background than most others who have edited this page".

[Kelly Martin]

He also notes that he has "greater knowledge of the relevant background than most others who have edited this page".

Ira can be reliably expected to slash about with the "greater knowledge" bully-whip. It makes him feel important and powerful when he does that.

[Abd]

NYB is not amused by the controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =612441768 "No further time and effort should at present be spent on this feigned and manufactured controversy. It appears that this article and its talkpage are being used to emphasize a few editors' strong personal disagreement with the Wikiconference's decision to disinvite Mr. Kohs, which is not the proper purpose of mainspace." He also notes that he has "greater knowledge of the relevant background than most others who have edited this page".

Great. Brilliant, in fact. In my analysis of the arguments, he is actually advancing a particularly weak form of the absolutely silliest and weakest argument: they did nothing wrong.

It's a particularly weak form because he provides no evidence at all, no explanation, no defense, just "I know what you don't know." Brilliant. That ought to resolve the issue immediately. I might point out, though, that NYB would very likely recuse in any ArbCom case coming out of this, not that it necessarily would make any difference. They still scratch each other's backs.

That's not the issue on that page. The issue is whether or not there is a controversy notable enough to include in the List of Wikipedia controversies. So NYB's "greater knowledge" is completely irrelevant. And he is simply creating more fodder for media to cover. Newyorkbrad is reputed to be a lawyer. You couldn't prove it by me. Lawyers are generally trained to defuse disputes, not to throw gasoline on the flames. Telling people to shut up is classically dumb.

The corporate officials for MacDonald's that told the woman she had no cause for complaint when the coffee she was given was *extremely hot,* really just below boiling, were not smart lawyers, and it cost that company a lot of money (she would have settled for not very much, early on). No, a smart lawyer will do everything to make a complainant feel heard. Hence ... if he is a lawyer, he is definitely not a smart lawyer. Of course, they aren't paying him. Maybe they are getting what they pay for.

[neved]

Meantime looks like now we have one more controversy to report. I mean controversy of refusing to add the banning controversy to the list of controversies.
and there's more from NYB

@Newyorkbrad:: Seriously? "No further time and effort should at present be spent on this feigned and manufactured controversy. It appears that this article and its talkpage are being used to emphasize a few editors' strong personal disagreement with the Wikiconference's decision to disinvite Mr. Kohs, which is not the proper purpose of mainspace." Is it not enough that you are able to state your opinion along with other editors, you have also to try to shut down the conversation? And you comment not on content but on contributors and their motives? First we have administrators edit-warring and now we have an arbitrator explicitly failing to assume good faith and accusing without evidence "a few editors" of violating talk page policy? Is making unsubtantiable accusations like that "the proper use of mainspace" in your opinion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If I believed I could shut down the conversation(s) on this page unilaterally, I would be delusional, and whatever may be my drawbacks as a Wikipedian, I am not that. I do think that valuable editor time is being misspent here, however, and it's my right to say so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tah!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

[Sparky]

NYB is not amused by the controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =612441768 "No further time and effort should at present be spent on this feigned and manufactured controversy. It appears that this article and its talkpage are being used to emphasize a few editors' strong personal disagreement with the Wikiconference's decision to disinvite Mr. Kohs, which is not the proper purpose of mainspace." He also notes that he has "greater knowledge of the relevant background than most others who have edited this page".

Is there somewhere that we can check off the 'involved' when they comment on this matter?

[Abd]

To reiterate, the issue on the List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L) page is not whether or not it was an error to exclude Kohs from the WikiConference, the issue is whether or not the incident is sufficiently notable to be covered on that page. That's a fairly basic question in Wikipedia policy, and it turns on Reliable Source and how much Reliable Source is necessary to mention something in an article. What's really weird is that normally, it only takes one reliable source for some kind of mention. (The standard can be a bit higher for a BLP, but nobody is playing the BLP card here.) That's why this discussion is easily recognized as about POV and the exclusion of what is regarded as criticism.

However, there is another issue of interest. Newyorkbrad is an arbitrator, and the arbs are tasked with interpreting community consensus (and policy that has been established by consensus). In his argument, he claims, essentially, that the inclusion proposal and discussion is all about a personal belief of some editors that exclusion was wrong.

What does the real Wikipedia community think about that? Here is my strong suspicion from what I've seen on this issue. The core, the cabal, will be split, but most will favor exclusion. However, if this opens up to general editors, if it's in a place where they will come across the discussion and comment in it, I have little doubt that a strong majority will consider exclusion to have been an error. It is like the RfC on meta to remove Jimbo's founder tools. When it only saw participation by core editors, it was running about 2:1 against. That was actually quite high, one might think that the core would have noticed how many editors of weight were suggesting tool removal. But when Jimbo then threw his weight around on Commons, participants poured in and the ratio reversed dramatically, such that Jimbo caved. The difference was really about breadth of participation, not the basic issue.

But maybe I'm wrong. What is interesting to me is that Newyorkbrad seems to assume something different. Does he have some crystal ball that reveals to him the true state of the community?

[Midsize Jake]

Meantime looks like now we have one more controversy to report. I mean controversy of refusing to add the banning controversy to the list of controversies.

Awesome! Now if we can just get to a third level of recursion, we'll break our previous record!

(Just to make things easier for folks, no need to type it out, just copy & paste the following: This would be the controversy of refusing to add the controversy surrounding the refusal to add the banning controversy to the list of controversies to the list of controversies.)

[Zoloft]

Meantime looks like now we have one more controversy to report. I mean controversy of refusing to add the banning controversy to the list of controversies.

Awesome! Now if we can just get to a third level of recursion, we'll break our previous record!

(Just to make things easier for folks, no need to type it out, just copy & paste the following: This would be the controversy of refusing to add the controversy surrounding the refusal to add the banning controversy to the list of controversies to the list of controversies.)

Sounds like a job for [font]Papyrus|meta[/font].meta.wikipedia.org.

[Abd]

-- with butter!

A new argument was raised, it may have been mentioned before and I didn't notice.

Oppose This article primarily concerns controversies concerning encyclopedic content and the governance of that content. A wikiconference can exclude whoever it wants and that is only a big deal to those who want to make it a big deal. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

With that comment, in the formal positions expressed (not counting all the other comments), it's up to 8:8, thus demonstrating that, in fact, there is some kind of genuine controversy here.

If there is no wide RfC, I expect the exclusion position to grow a bit. If there is a wide RfC, I expect that to flip. Without a wide RfC, comment will be warped toward the core's positions, those who follow AN/I.

What does the article concern? Johnuniq says "primarily," which implies "not exclusively." In other words, his argument contradicts itself. Don't you love it when they do that? Notice that if some people want to make something a big deal, and others don't agree, that makes it a controversy.

1. Many of the controversies are over Wikipedian behavior, not content *per se*. This one is about Wikipedian behavior. This was not some independent organization, in fact, though legally it was outside of Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is not a reality. The WMF is, and the committee that excluded is also real, the latter was entirely Wikipedians, working to organize a Conference to support Wikipedia and Wikipedians. What they did reflects on Wikipedia, for better or worse.

2. The MyWikiBiz controversy was not about content. It was about the behavior and alleged behavior of Wikipedians, a small set of them.

3. The Doran incident was completely not about content.

4. The Commons pornography affair is not about encyclopedic content at all. It's about image hosting on Commons. Aspects of it are related to the encyclopedia, but the mission of Commons is much broader than "encyclopedic content."

5. The Fae incident largely concerned the activities of a WMF chapter and an officer of that chapter.

6. The Wikibilim incident was not about encyclopedia content (at least not on the English Wikipedia).

7. The issue of WMF distribution of funds to chapters is included in the article. That is very much related to the Conference exclusion issue. It's not at all about encyclopedia content.

8. Kaldari's dismissal was not related to actual encyclopedic content, but to his discussion attack on another editor through a sock puppet.

Basically, Johnunique is totally blowing wikilawyered smoke. It's a common POV-pushing tactic. "This information does not belong in this article." Okay, where? Do we see him adding it somewhere else?

I didn't think so. No, the real argument that most of the commenters, in fact, have focused on, is the issue of notability and reliable source. From my point of view, Cla68 was nowhere near assertive enough. O'Dwyer's is not a non-RS blog. I'm not sure it's a blog at all, but there have been RS blogs. "Blog" is a publication style. If the content is edited, if there is editorial responsibility, if the publication is independent, generally, it's RS. I read over the content on O'Dwyer's and the appearance is that of a highly responsible and careful fact-checked publication. They have neutral tone down quite well, I was surprised. The claims that this was a "puff piece" were POV puffery.

Alf.laylah pointed to the New York Times' appraisal of O'Dwyers:

Although Kevin Gorman has suggested that I be blocked should I create any new sections on this talk page, I believe I will risk the wrath of the cabal for this important purpose. Here is a new source. Now, many of you think that O'Dwyer's is not an RS, but look! The NYT itself treats it as a reliable source. Can we do less? I will be proposing concrete language later today based on the fact that we now have multiple sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Alf, stop lying. Thanks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What lie? First of all, there is a new article. It is not a new source, per se, so maybe that is what Gorman means by "lie," but that is a matter of usage. Saying that someone is lying is grossly uncivil, particularly when it's over some accident of usage like this. On the other hand, the most important thing that Alf.laylah claimed was about the NY Times, and they wrote, on his linked page:

ITEM: Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter, the bible of the public relations profession, lists huge increases in billings at P.R. agencies this year.

Now, that's an offhand remark, but what I see is a cavalier disregard of an obvious fact: O'Dwyers is not some blog, it is a highly respected publication in its field. The commenters have been making claims like "blog editors need to create material, so they focus on trivial stuff." However, the core article here, the original one used, was written by Jack O'Dwyer himself, and he had multiple staffers at the WikiConference (there was a previous article on the Conference itself). They really can't see the forest for the trees that they are claiming are just a few weeds.

It is *obvious* that the exclusion incident was considered notable by at least two media sources. I'm not claiming that it's insane to disagree on the notability being adequate for inclusion. I'll notice that some of these seem to think that more sources will show up, and, indeed, I expect that this incident, because of all the relatively juicy material it is generating, will indeed see more coverage eventually.

Newyorkbrad is correct, there is a waste of time here, but that applies to both sides, not just one. His real blooper is presenting that argument while taking one side. And his reason for that is transparent. He made the decision, or was at least an important part of it. He conveyed the decision, which does, in my book, make him thoroughly responsible for it. So he is defending himself, and that is the tack he took, without actually defending himself, he only wrote that he knew more about it, implying "you all don't know what you are talking about. Shut up." (He back-pedalled when Alf.laylah confronted him. He is not entirely dim, but he's not getting smarter).

[Abd]

Meantime looks like now we have one more controversy to report. I mean controversy of refusing to add the banning controversy to the list of controversies.

Awesome! Now if we can just get to a third level of recursion, we'll break our previous record!

(Just to make things easier for folks, no need to type it out, just copy & paste the following: This would be the controversy of refusing to add the controversy surrounding the refusal to add the banning controversy to the list of controversies to the list of controversies.)

This is a variation on, "It's the cover-up, stupid." Basically, want to inflate a controversy? Claim there is no controversy. You will enrage all those whose point of view you are denying. If there was a mild controversy before, it will become a train wreck, after.

[Peter Damian]

All right. We just strayed back in to that territory of asking people to not talk about something. I'm glad it was NYB, tho, because I have something to say to him. NYB, I think it is highly unethical of a conference organizer to assert that there are good reasons for banning an attendee that they are privately aware of and not disclose them. You are playing with a man's reputation, NYB, and frankly it's starting to look like you'd be perfectly willing to compromise his to save your own. You are condemning him without a trial, and that is precisely the issue at the heart of this controversy. There is only one circumstance I can think of under which that would be appropriate, and that's if this attendee presented a threat to other attendees. In that case, I think many people would agree that it is sufficient disclosure to simply state that he was not allowed because he presented a threat. So, it's about time we got down to brass tacks. Was Greg Kohs banned from WikiConference USA 2014 because he presented a threat to other attendees, including, not limited to, organizers, presenters, or sponsored attendees, either legally or physically? You have the floor. ,Wil (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wil has this absolutely right. By all means 'disinvite' someone. But state the reasons out in the open. In particular, don't hint or intimate that the secret ban invoked a policy which designates 'harassment' and 'harassing behaviour', 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention' and similar unsavoury, unpleasant or criminal practices.

This is playing with a man's reputation. Ira's behaviour in this affair has been unseemly.

[Peter Damian]

On a separate note, I was told last week in an email from New York Law School President Anthony Crowell that the conference was organized "by an independent organization, independent individuals, and for an independent purpose uncoordinated with the Law School or the NYLS Institute for Information Law and Policy". This is not entirely true. The conference organiser Jennifer Baek claims on LinkedIn to be employed by the School as a Fellow. Or if she is not a paid employee, she is at least claiming an affiliation.

2. In this introduction to a keynote speech at the conference Baek is speaking from a lectern with the NYLS logo clearly visible. See also this picture, and see all these pictures also with the logo visible. Most institutions strictly forbid the connection of logos in a way that misleadingly appropriates their brand and authority.

(See as well this picture which shows Baek speaking at a different occasion, with lectern and logo once again, but this time clearly on behalf of the School. There is no clear differentiation between when she is speaking for Wikipedia, and when for the school.)

3. Disturbingly , Baek is the main signatory of this Orwellian policy document, which the organisers invoked to justify Kohs's ban. The policy designates 'harassment' and 'harassing behaviour', 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention' and similar unsavoury, unpleasant or criminal practices.

I pointed out to Crowell that I have known Greg for many years and I do not believe he has been involved in any kind of harassment, and it is a slur on his character and reputation to suggest that he has. He has been a notable critic of the Wikimedia movement for many years, but that is something entirely different.

Although I received an immediate reply to my first email, Crowell has now gone into radio silence.

In response to a question, I also received an email from one of the Wikipedians who originally insinuated there were secret reasons for Kohs’s ban. The Wikipedian replied, in effect, that he had made this up, and knew no more than we did. I suggested he apologise to Kohs, either privately or publicly, but he has declined, and asked me not to mention him directly. He asked Ira Matetsky (Brad) to comment, but Brad has also declined.

[TungstenCarbide]

... 3. Disturbingly , Baek is the main signatory of this Orwellian policy document, which the organisers invoked to justify Kohs's ban. The policy designates 'harassment' and 'harassing behaviour', 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention' and similar unsavoury, unpleasant or criminal practices...

..."WikiConference USA is dedicated to providing a harassment-free event experience for
everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, or preferred Creative Commons license (and not
limited to those aspects)."

they forgot nationality.

[Zoloft]

... 3. Disturbingly , Baek is the main signatory of this Orwellian policy document, which the organisers invoked to justify Kohs's ban. The policy designates 'harassment' and 'harassing behaviour', 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention' and similar unsavoury, unpleasant or criminal practices...

..."WikiConference USA is dedicated to providing a harassment-free event experience for
everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, or preferred Creative Commons license (and not
limited to those aspects)."

they forgot nationality.

they forgot ethnicity.
they forgot marital status.
they forgot residency status.
they forgot choice of editor (vi or emacs).
they forgot political beliefs.
they forgot philosophical differences.

[TungstenCarbide]

... 3. Disturbingly , Baek is the main signatory of this Orwellian policy document, which the organisers invoked to justify Kohs's ban. The policy designates 'harassment' and 'harassing behaviour', 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention' and similar unsavoury, unpleasant or criminal practices...

..."WikiConference USA is dedicated to providing a harassment-free event experience for
everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, or preferred Creative Commons license (and not
limited to those aspects)."

they forgot nationality.

they forgot ethnicity.
they forgot marital status.
they forgot residency status.
they forgot choice of editor (vi or emacs).
they forgot political beliefs.
they forgot philosophical differences.

Yeah, they're just picking and choosing the flavor of the day. Makes for interesting game theory.

[Notvelty]

... 3. Disturbingly , Baek is the main signatory of this Orwellian policy document, which the organisers invoked to justify Kohs's ban. The policy designates 'harassment' and 'harassing behaviour', 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention' and similar unsavoury, unpleasant or criminal practices...

..."WikiConference USA is dedicated to providing a harassment-free event experience for
everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, or preferred Creative Commons license (and not
limited to those aspects)."

they forgot nationality.

they forgot ethnicity.
they forgot marital status.
they forgot residency status.
they forgot choice of editor (vi or emacs).
they forgot political beliefs.
they forgot philosophical differences.

Hey.. choice of editor is a valid reason. Everyone knows that one is clearly better than the other.

[dogbiscuit]

Hey.. choice of editor is a valid reason. Everyone knows that one is clearly better than the other.

Good point. I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of an outcry that there is no vi interface for editing Wikipedia considering the demographics. Perhaps that's where VE went wrong?

[Hex]

Hey.. choice of editor is a valid reason. Everyone knows that one is clearly better than the other.

Good point. I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of an outcry that there is no vi interface for editing Wikipedia considering the demographics. Perhaps that's where VE went wrong?

That's because all the real editors are using mediawiki-el for Emacs instead.

Just kidding, I can't stand either of them. (When it comes to editing on the command line I'm a Joe's Own Editor (T-H-L) kind of guy.)

[The Adversary]

All right. We just strayed back in to that territory of asking people to not talk about something. I'm glad it was NYB, tho, because I have something to say to him. NYB, I think it is highly unethical of a conference organizer to assert that there are good reasons for banning an attendee that they are privately aware of and not disclose them. You are playing with a man's reputation, NYB, and frankly it's starting to look like you'd be perfectly willing to compromise his to save your own. You are condemning him without a trial, and that is precisely the issue at the heart of this controversy. There is only one circumstance I can think of under which that would be appropriate, and that's if this attendee presented a threat to other attendees. In that case, I think many people would agree that it is sufficient disclosure to simply state that he was not allowed because he presented a threat. So, it's about time we got down to brass tacks. Was Greg Kohs banned from WikiConference USA 2014 because he presented a threat to other attendees, including, not limited to, organizers, presenters, or sponsored attendees, either legally or physically? You have the floor. ,Wil (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wil has this absolutely right. By all means 'disinvite' someone. But state the reasons out in the open. In particular, don't hint or intimate that the secret ban invoked a policy which designates 'harassment' and 'harassing behaviour', 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention' and similar unsavoury, unpleasant or criminal practices.

This is playing with a man's reputation. Ira's behaviour in this affair has been unseemly.

Or at least: inform the man why he has been banned.
From my understanding: they have given no specific reason to Greg why he was banned.

The whole thing is like taken out of a Kafka novel, "The trial", to be specific.

[thekohser]

He also notes that he has "greater knowledge of the relevant background than most others who have edited this page".

Ira can be reliably expected to slash about with the "greater knowledge" bully-whip. It makes him feel important and powerful when he does that.

Joseph McCarthy used to do that very thing, too! Well done, Brad. You have another 12 hours to do one of the three ethical things I told you you could do. If not, your e-mail to me goes public.

[Randy from Boise]

Joseph McCarthy used to do that very thing, too! Well done, Brad. You have another 12 hours to do one of the three ethical things I told you you could do. If not, your e-mail to me goes public.

This just in from Wall Street.... At the opening bell ConAgra stock is up 11-3/8 in heavy trading...

RfB

[Triptych]

It was a controlled access building with security at the front who were not admitting anyone without a conference badge, and who I'm relatively certain had been told that a potential attendee who had been disinvited under the public friendly space policy might try to show up anyway. They seemed pretty happy to ensure that our friendly space policy was upheld. Honestly, I find it a bit funny that I picked a totally apparent anagram and have never hid my identity and you still feel some odd desire to make it look like I'm trying to conceal my identity in your post.

More absurd doubletalk now approaching infantile, Vinegar. You're now positing the three-step that because 1) security guards checked badges, that 2) this signified endorsement of the friendly spaces policy, and therefore 3) NYLS was square behind Wikiconference USA's banning of Greg Kohs.

As well, the part where you say you were "relatively certain" means of course you haven't even asked about what the guards were told and have no clue about it.

Finally, I don't see where my typing "Kevin Gorman AKA Vinegar Monk" signifies that I "tried to make it look like you concealed your identity." It just laid out the marker for me who just recently realized it, as well anyone dropping in new to the conversation. The thread is not only in part about you as WikiConference participant and Kohs-accuser but also you are participating in it under the anagram. I did notice the anagram before you said anything about it, but it's not something that would occur to anyone instantaneously or a newcomer to the conversation. I made no speculation or imputation as to your motives with "Kevin Gorman AKA Vinegar Monk," and really I give you some credit for showing up here at Wikipediocracy and defending your positions.

[Triptych]

He also notes that he has "greater knowledge of the relevant background than most others who have edited this page".

Ira can be reliably expected to slash about with the "greater knowledge" bully-whip. It makes him feel important and powerful when he does that.

Joseph McCarthy used to do that very thing, too! Well done, Brad. You have another 12 hours to do one of the three ethical things I told you you could do. If not, your e-mail to me goes public.

That's right. Sen. McCarthy claimed to have secret evidence when he fearmongered so effectively about communists in the American government. Brad and Kevin and Kevin and the rest fearmonger about you on the basis secret evidence in an effort to hush questions about what specifically if anything you did to get banned from Wikiconference USA.

Secret evidence is also an everyday practice among Wikipedia's blockamaniacs and supposed "sockpuppet investigators." Dennis Brown is one that says all his reasons and wealth experience on telltale signs of socking have to stay secret lest the sockmasters find out what gives them away (i.e. WP:BEANS) but he's just another little cyberbully prick acting on his unfounded suspicions in his little detective fantasy and of course blocking those like Enwikibadscience who didn't do it, and I noticed him doing more like that just last week.

Looking forward to, as you say, either hearing from Brad or seeing his email that sheds light on it after the countdown, currently 9 hours plus change. Fun stuff!

[Abd]

alf.laylah.wa.laylah is acquiting himself very well on talk for List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L). This conversation is downright beautiful, and it shows, very clearly, the insanity and tendentious POV-pushing of the cabal. What's really wild is that this is taking place on a page where, we know, there is media attention and there is likely to be more. Basically, O'Dwyer's is being trashed because their articles were "full of errors." Okay, Alf says, suppose it is. What errors? Coretheapple just keeps repeating the Message: trash, blog, retribution, hit piece.

Alf points out that if a media outlet is publishing a "hit piece" this is prima facie evidence of a "controversy." Not the opposite.

This is how the cabal operates when aroused: there will be a series of arguments. The arguments are often mutually contradictory, but that doesn't matter, because they assert them one editor at a time. To review this, the arguments against inclusion are.

1. Not truth. Though what is not truth is not stated.
2. Nothing was done that was wrong. Which is not what the text revert warred over claimed. Obviously, though, those arguing this (which includes NYB) think that a position that nothing was wrong negates the existence of controversy. Controversies can be based on errors, happens all the time.
3. There is no reliable source.
4. There is not enough reliable source.
5. The event is not notable.
6. This isn't about Wikipedia, it's about a local chapter.

Alf.laylah has been patiently deconstructing the barrage. It's obvious to me that Coretheapples' original research (i.e, his conclusion that O'Dwyer's was not reliable source because his unsubstantiated opinion, reading the articles, was that the articles were hit pieces, retaliatory, and full of errors) was based on his POV about the exclusion of Kohs, not about the technical issue of inclusion or exclusion of the controversy.

He's displaying a very common form of bias on Wikipedia, the selection of evidence and argument based on the desired conclusion. Notice that Alf.laylah's substantial arguments from policy, such as WP:NEWSBLOG (T-H-L), are ignored.

Alf.laylah has not acknowledged that O'Dwyer's is a blog, his NEWSBLOG argument was conditional. It appears to me to be a print newsletter that also publishes articles immediately on-line. The articles are signed, but it's also clear that O'Dwyers assigned a number of staff members to the WikiConference, and this is a news organization, publishing news and authoritative information on the public relations industry, routinely and voluminously. I will post another Wikipedia controversy here, also from O'Dwyers.

Notice that Coretheapple is implying that there should be a campaign to remove references to O'Dwyer's from Wikipedia. How dare they put up something that can be used to criticize Wikipedia?

Coretheapple makes quite a few statements that are clearly and demonstrably wrong about O'Dwyers, and people do that when they are utterly convinced that they are right, then if they are right, what they think must be true.

This is not a blog in a news organization. It is the personal blog of some guy who runs a PR newsletter. As we can see from what he has written on this manufactured controversy, he writes utter rubbish, no fact-checking, no accuracy. So no, not applicable.

Alf.laylah is nailing him. What I quoted is obviously false, as a review of the articles quickly shows. Most of them are not written by Jack O'Dwyer. He's a serious publisher, making money from being considered highly reliable, and the newsletter routinely publishes a great deal of material of high interest, obviously, to those in the public relations field.

This is exactly the kind of publisher that Wikipedia, at core, relies upon for judgments of notability, in particular, as well as fact.

The scary thing about Wikipedia is that argumentation like this happens all the time. It was routine on Cold fusion (T-H-L). Basically, reliable sources were deprecated routinely because cabal editors believed that they published something wrong. It became completely ridiculous. I was banned for doing what Alf.laylah has been doing. The same charges were made (too much discussion!).

Before that, the first cold fusion ban was issued by William M. Connolley for discussion made necessary by page protection through a request from the revert warrior (Hipocrite). The discussion was working, we had found an obvious and complete consensus, which WMC proceeded to ignore, making his own edit under protection, and knowing this was provocative. (That was possibly a factor in his later desysopping.)

The only "error" that has credibly been alleged about O'Dwyer's, of any weight, is not an error at all, it is a judgment. That is, a judgment that the Kohs Ban Incident was notable, i.e., of interest to readers. And then, going further, that the flap on the Wikipedia page was likewise notable. Of course, if you attack a news organization, they just might write about it!

Was the 2nd article (it was really the third on the Conference) a "hit piece" on Gorman? They gave Gorman the last word. Every fact seems accurate or at least close. They don't allege misbehavior, but they quoted an obvious fact: "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)." That is a report of an impression, not that there was actual self-censorship and cover-up.

They let the readers come to their own conclusions. If I was going to write a "hit piece" on Gorman, I would say a great deal more, quoting the many extreme and false and deceptive statements from Gorman, found in his arguments on-wiki. No errors appeared to me, reading this article. The article seems to be rigorously neutral, the kind of tone that Wikipedia and Wikpiedians are supposed to adopt.

[Mancunium]

I presume the correspondents on this thread are aware of this: link

New York Mag's O'Dwyer Link Roils Wikipedia
O'Dwyer's PR News, 10 June 2014 link

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. 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 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." [... &c., &c. ...]

[Cedric]

All right. We just strayed back in to that territory of asking people to not talk about something. I'm glad it was NYB, tho, because I have something to say to him. NYB, I think it is highly unethical of a conference organizer to assert that there are good reasons for banning an attendee that they are privately aware of and not disclose them. You are playing with a man's reputation, NYB, and frankly it's starting to look like you'd be perfectly willing to compromise his to save your own. You are condemning him without a trial, and that is precisely the issue at the heart of this controversy. There is only one circumstance I can think of under which that would be appropriate, and that's if this attendee presented a threat to other attendees. In that case, I think many people would agree that it is sufficient disclosure to simply state that he was not allowed because he presented a threat. So, it's about time we got down to brass tacks. Was Greg Kohs banned from WikiConference USA 2014 because he presented a threat to other attendees, including, not limited to, organizers, presenters, or sponsored attendees, either legally or physically? You have the floor. ,Wil (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wil has this absolutely right. By all means 'disinvite' someone. But state the reasons out in the open. In particular, don't hint or intimate that the secret ban invoked a policy which designates 'harassment' and 'harassing behaviour', 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention' and similar unsavoury, unpleasant or criminal practices.

Nice paring down of the issues, Wil. I think that in some respects, you would have been a better lawyer than what Ira has been.

This is playing with a man's reputation. Ira's behaviour in this affair has been unseemly.

This is something Ira knows all too well, or has every reason to.

I pointed out to Crowell that I have known Greg for many years and I do not believe he has been involved in any kind of harassment, and it is a slur on his character and reputation to suggest that he has. He has been a notable critic of the Wikimedia movement for many years, but that is something entirely different.

Although I received an immediate reply to my first email, Crowell has now gone into radio silence.
. . .

He asked Ira Matetsky (Brad) to comment, but Brad has also declined.

I have a deep-seated suspicion that the reason for all the "radio silence" is that Ira gave one of his legal pontifications (I won't dignify it by calling it "advice") that no one connected with the conference should in any way mention the specific grounds for Greg's ban, because that might well be used as grounds by Greg for a defamation suit. Ironically, that could well be true.

[Kelly Martin]

This conference started out by declaring that they're "open to anyone", so they can't just say that by "anyone" they mean "anyone except people who express opinions we don't like", which is the real reason Greg was banned. So, in order to avoid a meritorious charge of hypocrisy, they concocted a "legitimate" reason to ban Greg, vaguely having to do with harassment, intimidation, or some other nefarious behavior that would justify a ban. However, they can't prove such a charge, and in fact have no good faith belief in the merits of such a charge, so to actually accuse Greg of such things would be actionable defamation. This places them in a bind: if they expand on the reason for Greg's ban, they will be liable, both legally and morally, for defaming Greg's character, and if they refuse to expand on the reason for Greg's ban, or recant that it had to do with harassment etc., then they are guilty of rank hypocrisy. Their only hope now is to bury it in waffle and mince, and hope nobody notices the stinking turd that lies underneath it all.

The legally sensible thing for them to do is to apologize to Greg and reimburse him for his $5.30. It would reveal them as hypocrites, but hypocrisy isn't actionable. But I rather doubt that they'll take this course of action.

From what I recall of defamation law, Greg would have a credible case if he wanted to pursue it, but it would be expensive and I imagine most of the participants are of sufficiently shallow pockets as to be effectively judgment-proof anyway, and the one who is not (Matetsky) no doubt has the means to make any litigation against him exceedingly expensive.

[Peter Damian]

I have a deep-seated suspicion that the reason for all the "radio silence" is that Ira gave one of his legal pontifications (I won't dignify it by calling it "advice") that no one connected with the conference should in any way mention the specific grounds for Greg's ban, because that might well be used as grounds by Greg for a defamation suit. Ironically, that could well be true.

Well lawyers often think like that, and generally hate people opening their mouth and damning themselves with it. But if you think this one through, it doesn’t make any sense. If Greg wasn’t guilty of anything, and it seems he wasn’t, then disinviting him by invoking a policy which talkes about 'harassment' 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact’ etc creates a fabulous legal risk.

[Randy from Boise]

This conference started out by declaring that they're "open to anyone", so they can't just say that by "anyone" they mean "anyone except people who express opinions we don't like", which is the real reason Greg was banned. So, in order to avoid a meritorious charge of hypocrisy, they concocted a "legitimate" reason to ban Greg, vaguely having to do with harassment, intimidation, or some other nefarious behavior that would justify a ban. However, they can't prove such a charge, and in fact have no good faith belief in the merits of such a charge, so to actually accuse Greg of such things would be actionable defamation. This places them in a bind: if they expand on the reason for Greg's ban, they will be liable, both legally and morally, for defaming Greg's character, and if they refuse to expand on the reason for Greg's ban, or recant that it had to do with harassment etc., then they are guilty of rank hypocrisy. Their only hope now is to bury it in waffle and mince, and hope nobody notices the stinking turd that lies underneath it all.

The legally sensible thing for them to do is to apologize to Greg and reimburse him for his $5.30. It would reveal them as hypocrites, but hypocrisy isn't actionable. But I rather doubt that they'll take this course of action.

From what I recall of defamation law, Greg would have a credible case if he wanted to pursue it, but it would be expensive and I imagine most of the participants are of sufficiently shallow pockets as to be effectively judgment-proof anyway, and the one who is not (Matetsky) no doubt has the means to make any litigation against him exceedingly expensive.

This seems to be what is going on.

Greg would have trouble proving monetary damages, unless say he got fired from his job or something, but I'm sure that $5.30 would be in the bag...

It's all very, very petty and Junior High school...

RfB

[Kelly Martin]

Well lawyers often think like that, and generally hate people opening their mouth and damning themselves with it. But if you think this one through, it doesn’t make any sense. If Greg wasn’t guilty of anything, and it seems he wasn’t, then disinviting him by invoking a policy which talkes about 'harassment' 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact’ etc creates a fabulous legal risk.

It's incidents like this that really lead me to believe that Wikipedia functions as a cult, at least in some regards. Ira Matetsky is, by all lights, a competent, possibly even superior, lawyer, and yet he has, in the past several months, exhibited several instances in which he has made legally questionable choices for himself or seemingly offered questionable advice of a legal nature to others. That suggests to me that his generally sound legal judgment is being obscured by something, which I strongly suspect is his overcommitment to Wikipedia. He really should step away from Wikipedia before he does something that ruins his career, and it would seem that he would also be strongly advised to retain counsel (preferably someone who is not also a Wikipedian) to review his comments before he posts them. I am reminded of the old saw about lawyers who represent themselves.

[Randy from Boise]

Well lawyers often think like that, and generally hate people opening their mouth and damning themselves with it. But if you think this one through, it doesn’t make any sense. If Greg wasn’t guilty of anything, and it seems he wasn’t, then disinviting him by invoking a policy which talkes about 'harassment' 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact’ etc creates a fabulous legal risk.

It's incidents like this that really lead me to believe that Wikipedia functions as a cult, at least in some regards. Ira Matetsky is, by all lights, a competent, possibly even superior, lawyer, and yet he has, in the past several months, exhibited several instances in which he has made legally questionable choices for himself or seemingly offered questionable advice of a legal nature to others. That suggests to me that his generally sound legal judgment is being obscured by something, which I strongly suspect is his overcommitment to Wikipedia. He really should step away from Wikipedia before he does something that ruins his career, and it would seem that he would also be strongly advised to retain counsel (preferably someone who is not also a Wikipedian) to review his comments before he posts them. I am reminded of the old saw about lawyers who represent themselves.

Oh, he'll be fine. He was dumb to volunteer to be the note-carrier from the clique of mean kids to Mr. Kohs, but he was probably listening to a couple people who expressed honest fear of being in the same room as The Beast, The Adversary, The Spoiler, The Vile Person, The Angel of the Bottomless Pit, and decided to do them a solid by adding some gravitas to their unwise and possibly illegal exclusion. link

And I'm sure he told them, "Hush, little babies..."

RfB

[wllm]

And now I'm being asked to shut up by someone on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 5226812418

I find it very interesting how many somehow believe that my strongly held ideals around openness and hearing everyone out will somehow be influenced by more experience editing Wikipedia. If that is true, doesn't it say a lot about what the Wikipedia experience has to offer?

[TungstenCarbide]

And now I'm being asked to shut up by someone on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 5226812418

hahahhahaaaahahahahaa

[Kelly Martin]

I find it very interesting how many somehow believe that my strongly held ideals around openness and hearing everyone out will somehow be influenced by more experience editing Wikipedia. If that is true, doesn't it say a lot about what the Wikipedia experience has to offer?

If you participate long enough in Wikipedia, you'll eventually be drawn into the Cult of Wikipedia and will thereby learn never to express, advance, repeat, or indeed tolerate any opinion of Wikipedia that denies its inherent awesomeness. So, yes, further participation in Wikipedia will tend to alter your your ideals about openness and "hearing everyone out", because Wikipedia's doctrines prohibit hearing out anyone who denies the fundamental awesomeness of Wikipedia. Those who fail to accept this are almost invariably marginalized, if not pushed out entirely.

[thekohser]

And now I'm being asked to shut up by someone on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 5226812418

I find it very interesting how many somehow believe that my strongly held ideals around openness and hearing everyone out will somehow be influenced by more experience editing Wikipedia. If that is true, doesn't it say a lot about what the Wikipedia experience has to offer?

Careful, Wil... she's sharp. She has an MPhil degree in Sociology (sort of an advanced, second Master's degree, below a PhD) from Drew University, which she earned between 1999 and 2008. If it took nine years, you know it's a tough degree to earn. She's been a Twitter Trend Analyst and a Community Manager of other Twitter Trend contributors at What The Trend. So, if you're trying to do battle with her on Twitter, that's like wrasslin' a gator in 3 feet of water and one foot of muck.

You also used the wrong hashtag at first -- the "official" hashtag of the conference was #wikiconusa. I sure felt WikiConned.

[tarantino]

And now I'm being asked to shut up by someone on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 5226812418

hahahhahaaaahahahahaa

:rotfl:

That's Liz (T-C-L). She's frequently seen pontificating on various noticeboards.

[wllm]

I find it very interesting how many somehow believe that my strongly held ideals around openness and hearing everyone out will somehow be influenced by more experience editing Wikipedia. If that is true, doesn't it say a lot about what the Wikipedia experience has to offer?

If you participate long enough in Wikipedia, you'll eventually be drawn into the Cult of Wikipedia and will thereby learn never to express, advance, repeat, or indeed tolerate any opinion of Wikipedia that denies its inherent awesomeness. So, yes, further participation in Wikipedia will tend to alter your your ideals about openness and "hearing everyone out", because Wikipedia's doctrines prohibit hearing out anyone who denies the fundamental awesomeness of Wikipedia. Those who fail to accept this are almost invariably marginalized, if not pushed out entirely.

I'm not denying the fundamental awesomeness of Wikipedia. I'm denying the infallibility of members of its community. And fallibility is nothing to be ashamed of, IMO; all people make mistakes. We can't help it. No one can see in to the future with 100% accuracy. But we can all see in to the past, so there is no good excuse for not admitting that one has made a mistake. If the culture of Wikipedia encourage such behavior, it's simply one of the things that is weighing heavily on the awesomeness and could be changed for the better.

[wllm]

And now I'm being asked to shut up by someone on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 5226812418

I find it very interesting how many somehow believe that my strongly held ideals around openness and hearing everyone out will somehow be influenced by more experience editing Wikipedia. If that is true, doesn't it say a lot about what the Wikipedia experience has to offer?

Careful, Wil... she's sharp. She has an MPhil degree in Sociology (sort of an advanced, second Master's degree, below a PhD) from Drew University, which she earned between 1999 and 2008. If it took nine years, you know it's a tough degree to earn. She's been a Twitter Trend Analyst and a Community Manager of other Twitter Trend contributors at What The Trend. So, if you're trying to do battle with her on Twitter, that's like wrasslin' a gator in 3 feet of water and one foot of muck.

You also used the wrong hashtag at first -- the "official" hashtag of the conference was #wikiconusa. I sure felt WikiConned.

This isn't about Liz or her background. This is about her ideas. I'm happy to discuss her ideas anywhere, including twitter.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm not denying the fundamental awesomeness of Wikipedia.

I'm not saying you are. What I'm saying is that, if you participate in Wikipedia long enough, you will learn the rule that you must refuse to listen to anyone who does deny the awesomeness of Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever. That is, you must refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't accept that Wikipedia is awesome. This goes against your self-identified ideal of "hearing everyone out". If you fail to accept this rule of Wikipedia, you will be, at best, marginalized, and at worst pushed out entirely.

The "you haven't edited enough to comment" response is a marginalization effort: your opinion is being marginalized on the basis that "you haven't edited enough, therefore your opinion is of no consequence and can therefore be ignored". It is one of the many excuses they use to disregard undesirable opinions and the people who offer them.

[Peter Damian]

Oh, he [Brad]'ll be fine.

From a legal point of view, surely. From the standpoint of basic decency, surely not.

[Vigilant]

I'm not denying the fundamental awesomeness of Wikipedia.

I'm not saying you are. What I'm saying is that, if you participate in Wikipedia long enough, you will learn the rule that you must refuse to listen to anyone who does deny the awesomeness of Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever. That is, you must refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't accept that Wikipedia is awesome. This goes against your self-identified ideal of "hearing everyone out". If you fail to accept this rule of Wikipedia, you will be, at best, marginalized, and at worst pushed out entirely.

The "you haven't edited enough to comment" response is a marginalization effort: your opinion is being marginalized on the basis that "you haven't edited enough, therefore your opinion is of no consequence and can therefore be ignored". It is one of the many excuses they use to disregard undesirable opinions and the people who offer them.

"There's plenty of work to do"
"Go edit an article"
"Not here to write an encyclopedia"

Etc, etc, etc

All of these are code words for "sit down and shut up"

[thekohser]

This is about her ideas. I'm happy to discuss her ideas anywhere, including twitter.

How about this idea of hers?

Liz Pullen
‏@nwjerseyliz

@wllm You seem to have no idea how disruptive Kohs was to Wikipedia, the damage he caused. Learn about WP history before casting judgment.

Reply Retweet Favorite More
7:28 AM - 11 Jun 2014

[Vigilant]

This is about her ideas. I'm happy to discuss her ideas anywhere, including twitter.

How about this idea of hers?

Liz Pullen
‏@nwjerseyliz

@wllm You seem to have no idea how disruptive Kohs was to Wikipedia, the damage he caused. Learn about WP history before casting judgment.

Reply Retweet Favorite More
7:28 AM - 11 Jun 2014

You saved me having to make another twitter account

Gregory Kohs ‏@thekohser 8m

@nwjerseyliz @wllm Please describe what "damage" I ever caused Wikipedia. I do concede that truth can be very disruptive to a closed group.

Someone should invite her to join this discussion.

[Kelly Martin]

Note how afraid Wikipedians are of "disruption". They don't seem to understand that society advances mainly by disruption, and that by fearing disruption they are working to ensconce stasis. Of course, that's what many of them want: Wikipedia is the way they like it, because it serves their present interests and they don't want their cheese moved. But is stasis what's best for Wikipedia as a whole, or for the society in which Wikipedia is embedded? They don't seem to care about that.

[Kelly Martin]

Someone should invite her to join this discussion.

Done.

[mac]

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.

When I first edited Wikipedia, I had no gray hair. Maybe there is something to this theory.

[Hex]

When I first edited Wikipedia, I had no gray hair. Maybe there is something to this theory.

Clearly, you should have become an admin.

[Randy from Boise]

I've broadly hinted to Wil that he needs to be cognizant of [[WP:NOTHERE]] (Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia).

When the religious townspeople gather pitchforks to have themselves a hangin' in the village square, that's the argument they're going to use against him.

Without an ongoing work history on WP, they'll wipe him out slicker than snot for "disruption."

RfB