Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

[Bielle]

Nobody has yet posted the link to the WikiConference USA budget: link The New York Law School waived "over $48,000" in venue costs.

Should anyone believe the claim that New York Law School had nothing to do with the conference:

Jennifer Baek, Secretary of Wikimedia NYC, successfully organized the 2013 Free Culture Conference at New York Law School and has a working relationship with the administrative staff of the venue.

Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L) was in charge of handing out $22,000 in WMF travel scholarships.

Scholarship applicants will be surveyed on their experience and attitudes on Wikimedia projects as part of the application process. Scholarship recipients will then be surveyed six months following the conference to determine the impact of the conference on their Wikimedia activities.

So it was as it appeared to me — both a very economical conclave and a WMF travel boondoggle at the same time...

tim

P.S. What the fuck does "...experience and attitudes..." mean???

I'd like to see those 6-month surveys.

[Vigilant]

Nobody has yet posted the link to the WikiConference USA budget: link The New York Law School waived "over $48,000" in venue costs.

Should anyone believe the claim that New York Law School had nothing to do with the conference:

Jennifer Baek, Secretary of Wikimedia NYC, successfully organized the 2013 Free Culture Conference at New York Law School and has a working relationship with the administrative staff of the venue.

Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L) was in charge of handing out $22,000 in WMF travel scholarships.

Scholarship applicants will be surveyed on their experience and attitudes on Wikimedia projects as part of the application process. Scholarship recipients will then be surveyed six months following the conference to determine the impact of the conference on their Wikimedia activities.

So it was as it appeared to me — both a very economical conclave and a WMF travel boondoggle at the same time...

tim

P.S. What the fuck does "...experience and attitudes..." mean???

Of the body

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Nobody has yet posted the link to the WikiConference USA budget: link The New York Law School waived "over $48,000" in venue costs.

Should anyone believe the claim that New York Law School had nothing to do with the conference:

Jennifer Baek, Secretary of Wikimedia NYC, successfully organized the 2013 Free Culture Conference at New York Law School and has a working relationship with the administrative staff of the venue.

Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L) was in charge of handing out $22,000 in WMF travel scholarships.

Scholarship applicants will be surveyed on their experience and attitudes on Wikimedia projects as part of the application process. Scholarship recipients will then be surveyed six months following the conference to determine the impact of the conference on their Wikimedia activities.

So it was as it appeared to me — both a very economical conclave and a WMF travel boondoggle at the same time...

tim

P.S. What the fuck does "...experience and attitudes..." mean???

They likely had to fill out a survey with questions like:
1 Agree strongly
2 agree
3 somewhat agree
4 neutral
5 somewhat disagree
7 disagree
8 Disagree strongly
9 Other

A. The WMF should prioritize developing software to simplify editing for new users.
B. I want to work for the WMF.
etc.

[Peter Damian]

Oh, lackaday, and shock horror. Will has chosen Jumbo Prawn's talk page as the venue for a brief announcement of his retirement from WO:

[Extract] "For what it's worth, I told them today that I didn't think such doxxing behavior was OK for cases where they aren't exposing abuse (YMMV) and some of them did not like it at all. Then I reasserted that they are being asshats when they're making snarky comments about others. And, surprisingly enough, for completely separate reasons, I've stopped posting on WO altogether."

Sorry if this has already been reported elsewhere, or if this is the wrong thread for it; I've got my country casual weekend brain on.

Who didn't like it at all? I thought most people strongly agreed that it was only OK when exposing abuse.

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

[Kelly Martin]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

Wil is keeping his own counsel on what upset him, and the only statements I've seen, at least, are what you've already seen in his blog post. If he's said anything else, it's been in private to people who aren't sharing.

[Midsize Jake]

Who didn't like it at all? I thought most people strongly agreed that it was only OK when exposing abuse.

I suspect that he's been barraged by Wikipedian propaganda in the last several days, and has fallen into the common trap of seeing Wikipediocracy as a monolithic entity, as opposed to a collection of disparate individuals. If one person identifies a previously-anonymous Wikipedian on Wikipediocracy, it means Wikipediocracy identified the person. It's also possible that he doesn't believe that we do, in fact, remove personally-identifying information in cases where it's unwarranted (or even if it just fails to add value to a discussion).

I made a comment or two on his blog, trying (somewhat half-heartedly) to convince him that members here are not simply doing this "because they're doing it," and that the only way to effectively prevent such things from being posted is to either put everyone on moderation, or ban any and all offenders outright. Which is not something we would do "just to be nice," because either of these things (especially the former) would kill the website. Realistically, we would only enact such drastic measures if Wikipedia were to reform itself to the point where this site might not even be necessary.

It's not my website, though, so maybe I shouldn't make these statements on the site's behalf, but this was always our "unofficial position" at WR and nobody told me we were going with a new unofficial position. (Did we?)

[lilburne]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

Wil is keeping his own counsel on what upset him, and the only statements I've seen, at least, are what you've already seen in his blog post. If he's said anything else, it's been in private to people who aren't sharing.

I'll reiterate. WP has one fetish about anonymous editing and another fetish about COI. The two are in conflict and the anon thing allows to COI thing to thrive. Additionally, people game the system by creating multiple accounts which they then use stack a discussion. A large amount of time is spent tracking that down, and games are played around accusing one's opponents of creating multiple accounts etc. Anonymity allows people to say shit which they would not do if they were identifiable. Additionally some truly unsavoury characters hide behind anon accounts in order to conceal their motives. Finally their 'encyclopedia' is full of defamation and lies with impunity put their by people hiding behind. So all in all the anonymity fetish is working out quite well for them.

Doxxing causes the players anxiety, and deservedly too. If they weren't engaged in any shenanigans they'd have no fear of their real life being exposed. Frankly they are meant to be writing an encyclopedia and if they are serious about that then it doesn't involve COI edits, bulling, trolling, vote stacking, lies, defamation, or sociopaths.

[Hex]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

I'd put money on it being due to an intervention from Lila, who has probably been on the receiving end of all sorts pressure from the game players.

[Triptych]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

I'd put money on it being due to an intervention from Lila, who has probably been on the receiving end of all sorts pressure from the game players.

I'd bet big against that. She's said he's his own man, and he's said he doesn't speak on her behalf. Neither is going to buckle because of bickering and gossipy dweebs on mailing lists or discussion boards or Wikiconference USA.

[Triptych]

After having read through the last two pages...

Kevin Gorman, you're a... [etc.].

[ Post slightly censored in response to a complaint - SBJ ]

Allow me to emphasize my approval of, as illustrated above, the moderator leaving a marker and signature when he or she has to redact something. I just hate it when things disappear or are changed without a message of "something has been changed here."

[thekohser]

P.S. What the fuck does "...experience and attitudes..." mean???

You know exactly what it means, Randy. It just makes you uncomfortable to admit that you enjoy working for a project that demands that welcomed users must be "of the body".

[cyofee]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

I'd put money on it being due to an intervention from Lila, who has probably been on the receiving end of all sorts pressure from the game players.

I'd bet big against that. She's said he's his own man, and he's said he doesn't speak on her behalf. Neither is going to buckle because of bickering and gossipy dweebs on mailing lists or discussion boards or Wikiconference USA.

From his blog post I got the impression that it was mostly due to people's comments about his ADHD, in particular a post by Kelly Martin and another by Dan Murphy. I'd link them but the thread they were in was conveniently deleted.

[Triptych]

Pete Forsyth has a strange definition of public anyway. The person who made them "public" was Mr Gorman, who gloated about this issue, Wil reported this to the mailing list.

Wikipedians are verbally incontinent and do not grasp the meaning of "what goes on tour, stays on tour" - if you are going to snigger behind people's backs, then it is best not to do it to their face.

Adding:Pete is really getting his teeth into this - with footnotes!

That wikimedia-l email (https://archive.today/9XYN2, cached!) deserves some kind of medal. LOL! If I were Wil, I'd at least love the parts where Mr. Forsyth carefully breaks down his posting activity on various sites into precise statistics. I mean I'd love it assuming Forsyth didn't live within an hundred miles of me.

EDIT: Even just the title: "[Wikimedia-l] Why Wil's actions in multiple forums are a matter of significant concern." LOL!

[Zoloft]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

I'd put money on it being due to an intervention from Lila, who has probably been on the receiving end of all sorts pressure from the game players.

I'd bet big against that. She's said he's his own man, and he's said he doesn't speak on her behalf. Neither is going to buckle because of bickering and gossipy dweebs on mailing lists or discussion boards or Wikiconference USA.

From his blog post I got the impression that it was mostly due to people's comments about his ADHD, in particular a post by Kelly Martin and another by Dan Murphy. I'd link them but the thread they were in was conveniently deleted.

Conveniently at the request of the major contributor to that topic. If anyone would like a copy of their posts, PM me.

[dogbiscuit]

From his blog post I got the impression that it was mostly due to people's comments about his ADHD, in particular a post by Kelly Martin and another by Dan Murphy. I'd link them but the thread they were in was conveniently deleted.

Not entirely happy with that turn of phrase. It was removed from public sight both by request and because it contained too much personal information which the moderators thought it would be inappropriate to leave in the public domain.

We would rather Wil leave the forum and concentrate on being a normal human being than get sucked into Wikipedian nonsense. There was a danger that his presence here was more entertaining than educational but it was his decision and request to discontinue using the account and we would happily reactivate his account at his request at some future date.

[eagle]

Not that what WWB (T-C-L) has written something worth reading, but the Wikipedian blog has two entries relevant to this thread: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/06/02/ref ... rence-usa/ is Beutler's take on the Conference and http://thewikipedian.net/2014/05/30/mee ... -plus-one/ is his take on Wil Sinclair:

Sinclair took it upon himself to join Wikipediocracy, a website dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia, both responsible and otherwise. It’s a website that many Wikipedians loathe, although some grudgingly respect, and where a few even actively participate. Getting involved there requires a certain degree of care. And while Sinclair comes across as bright, articulate and polite in his postings, to a veteran observer he also comes across a bit clueless. It’s like entering a snake pit with only a textbook familiarity with the concept of a snakebite.

The comments on the blog postings became heated and some were removed.

[Peter Damian]

From his blog post I got the impression that it was mostly due to people's comments about his ADHD, in particular a post by Kelly Martin and another by Dan Murphy. I'd link them but the thread they were in was conveniently deleted.

Quite the opposite, he was upset because people weren't commenting enough.

Some of the people there weren’t just uninterested in this information, but uncomfortable with it. That’s not uncommon; a lot of people don’t like talking about emotions, for example. But they started demanding that nobody talk about it.
http://wllm.com/2014/06/15/its-been-fun ... -in-touch/

[dogbiscuit]

Not that what WWB (T-C-L) has written something worth reading, but the Wikipedian blog has two entries relevant to this thread: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/06/02/ref ... rence-usa/ is Beutler's take on the Conference and http://thewikipedian.net/2014/05/30/mee ... -plus-one/ is his take on Wil Sinclair:

Sinclair took it upon himself to join Wikipediocracy, a website dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia, both responsible and otherwise. It’s a website that many Wikipedians loathe, although some grudgingly respect, and where a few even actively participate. Getting involved there requires a certain degree of care. And while Sinclair comes across as bright, articulate and polite in his postings, to a veteran observer he also comes across a bit clueless. It’s like entering a snake pit with only a textbook familiarity with the concept of a snakebite.

The comments on the blog postings became heated and some were removed.

Unlike Mr Beutler who creates a snake pit and has to be told by the nest of vipers that he has been bitten.

Must be his day off.

[neved]

Oh, lackaday, and shock horror. Will has chosen Jumbo Prawn's talk page as the venue for a brief announcement of his retirement from WO:

[Extract] "For what it's worth, I told them today that I didn't think such doxxing behavior was OK for cases where they aren't exposing abuse (YMMV) and some of them did not like it at all. Then I reasserted that they are being asshats when they're making snarky comments about others. And, surprisingly enough, for completely separate reasons, I've stopped posting on WO altogether."

Sorry if this has already been reported elsewhere, or if this is the wrong thread for it; I've got my country casual weekend brain on.

Who didn't like it at all? I thought most people strongly agreed that it was only OK when exposing abuse.

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

Wil quoted Dan in his blog: “You seem to be a really nice guy. . . but who cares?”
and he left right after Dan's post.

[Randy from Boise]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

I'd put money on it being due to an intervention from Lila, who has probably been on the receiving end of all sorts pressure from the game players.

Wil is a nice person, but he is so bad at politics that it's almost as if the ED DIDN'T shut him down it is an indicator that she is doomed.

If a person aspires to sit on the Iron Throne, they've gotta know enough politics to survive amongst the Lannasters...

RfB

[Vigilant]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

I'd put money on it being due to an intervention from Lila, who has probably been on the receiving end of all sorts pressure from the game players.

Wil is a nice person, but he is so bad at politics that it's almost as if the ED DIDN'T shut him down it is an indicator that she is doomed.

If a person aspires to sit on the Iron Throne, they've gotta know enough politics to survive amongst the Lannasters...

RfB

The rules over there ARE "win or die".

[neved]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

I'd put money on it being due to an intervention from Lila, who has probably been on the receiving end of all sorts pressure from the game players.

Wil is a nice person,

RfB

He is just a nice person. Wil firmly stands up for what he believes is right.
Who else would have fought so hard for Greg, and remember by doing that Wil not only risked his reputation, but he also risked his personal relations.

[Hex]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

I'd put money on it being due to an intervention from Lila, who has probably been on the receiving end of all sorts of pressure from the game players.

Wil is a nice person, but he is so bad at politics that it's almost as if the ED DIDN'T shut him down it is an indicator that she is doomed.

Basically, this. Triptych, you write:

I'd bet big against that. She's said he's his own man, and he's said he doesn't speak on her behalf. Neither is going to buckle because of bickering and gossipy dweebs on mailing lists or discussion boards or Wikiconference USA.

While I think you're quite right in saying that neither would personally buckle, I think that political necessities will take precedence for Ms. Tretikov.

[thekohser]

New York Law School was perfectly happy to have us have a friendly space policy in place.

From the president of the NY Law School (who has given me permission to quote his letter here).

Dear Dr. B------,

Thank you for your email. We appreciate your concern about this issue. New York Law School is committed to the principle of free and open debate and has engaged a wide variety of voices from a wide variety of perspectives in the conferences, symposia, and panels that we host for our students and our community.

The Law School's sponsorship agreement with this conference did not provide for any substantive role, whatsoever, for our institution in the management of the conference. In fact, this 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.

Although we provided a space for the conference on our premises, we had no control or supervision in setting or implementing the decision making policies and processes regarding acceptances and rejections for participation. We also had no power over those individuals who did.

I hope this clarifies the role of our institution in this endeavor. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Anthony Crowell

I wonder if Anthony Crowell (T-H-L) is aware that the WikiConference USA director was a student for three years at New York Law School, and has been for the past 11 months an employee (Fellow) of the New York Law School, which makes Crowell either a liar or terribly misinformed.

Oh, and look who created Crowell's Wikipedia article! A single-purpose account Ajuncos (T-C-L) (who couldn't possibly have been the Communications Director of New York Law School, Andrea Juncos, right?), followed up extensively by another single-purpose account Leonora1805 (T-C-L) (whom I suspect I could identify by name, but will not, because that would be interpreted as poisonous "doxing").

[Vigilant]

What were the 'separate reasons'? I know Dan Murphy made a sharply-worded post.

I'd put money on it being due to an intervention from Lila, who has probably been on the receiving end of all sorts of pressure from the game players.

Wil is a nice person, but he is so bad at politics that it's almost as if the ED DIDN'T shut him down it is an indicator that she is doomed.

Basically, this. Triptych, you write:

I'd bet big against that. She's said he's his own man, and he's said he doesn't speak on her behalf. Neither is going to buckle because of bickering and gossipy dweebs on mailing lists or discussion boards or Wikiconference USA.

While I think you're quite right in saying that neither would personally buckle, I think that political necessities will take precedence for Ms. Tretikov.

My bet is that some inside baseball will get played and that detractors of Wil/Lila will get a dose of political beatdown.

I am, as ever, the romantic.

[thekohser]

For what it's worth, Jimbo was informed of the possible shenanigans surrounding New York Law School. Seven minutes later, "MONGO" took it upon himself to de-inform Jimbo.

[eagle]

For what it's worth, Jimbo was informed of the possible shenanigans surrounding New York Law School. Seven minutes later, "MONGO" took it upon himself to de-inform Jimbo.

That is funny. MONGO also deleted a grammatical correction made in the interim all based on "legal threat." I guess holding a conference that is open to the public including the "skeptical" at a Law School must be a form of legal threat.

[Vigilant]

I don't know if anyone else posted this and I'm just too lazy to search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 6-04/Op-ed

She seems cogent

And then in January, when I came back to work, I felt like a fish who had taken a three-month break from the water she swims in, and wow, it was demoralizing. It is—we have demoralizing people in the Wikimedia community, and we have some demoralizing processes in places, and some of us have gotten used to it

The Wikimedia movement really privileges liberty, way over hospitality. And for many people in the Wikimedia movement, free speech, as John Scalzi put it, is the ability to be a dick in every possible circumstance.

When someone is criticized for doing something inhospitable, the first response needs to not be: "Oh, but remember their edit count. Remember he's done X or she's done Y for this community."

One of the better signposts.

[dogbiscuit]

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

The amount of energy required to refute anything is usually far greater than to assert it, which of course is one of the fundamental issues of Wikipediocracy.

I think that it is a keynote speech that WO would be happy to endorse and fits with one of our long running themes that we get rather tired of highlighting.

[Hex]

One of the better signposts.

"By Kevin Gorman"

[Vigilant]

One of the better signposts.

"By Kevin Gorman"

I admit I hadn't noticed.

That's ... ironic.

Good work, Kevin.

[Sweet Revenge]

One of the better signposts.

"By Kevin Gorman"

I admit I hadn't noticed.

That's ... ironic.

Good work, Kevin.

Despite his many flaws, his writing's not bad.

[thekohser]

Are there any editors in good standing in the house? Your intervention is needed.

[thekohser]

Are there any editors in good standing in the house? Your intervention is needed.

Are you all cowards here?

[Mancunium]

Are there any editors in good standing in the house? Your intervention is needed.

Are you all cowards here?

Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.

[EricBarbour]

Are there any editors in good standing in the house? Your intervention is needed.

Why not turn him in for sockpuppeting and editwarring?
viewtopic.php?p=100727#p100727

[Notvelty]

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

The amount of energy required to refute anything is usually far greater than to assert it, which of course is one of the fundamental issues of Wikipediocracy.

I think that it is a keynote speech that WO would be happy to endorse and fits with one of our long running themes that we get rather tired of highlighting.

Except, that "incivility" she's talking about? Why do I get the feeling that it's not the same thing we're complaining about? Why do I get the feeling that the worst "incivility" is the pointing out that there are problems with Wikipedia?

Like many things in Wikipedia, they sound right... until you find out how they're creating the music.

[Anthonyhcole]

Sumana Harihareswara: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly." I agree with this, and with Vigilant, above, that Kevin's done an excellent summary of an excellent speech. The only thing I would add is that the criteria for exclusion need to be rational and used intelligently.

[Notvelty]

Sumana Harihareswara: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly." I agree with this, and with Vigilant, above, that Kevin's done an excellent summary of an excellent speech. The only thing I would add is that the criteria for exclusion need to be rational and used intelligently.

Sure.

Who gets to decide who to exclude explicitly?

How do they decide who to exclude explicitly?

How is this "excluding specific people" any different than what they did to Greg recently?

The public speaking was done well. The words were put together in a pleasing manner. The content? Standard, naïve, undergraduate garbage; where outcomes don't matter so long as the intention is good.

[Zoloft]

Sumana Harihareswara: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly." I agree with this, and with Vigilant, above, that Kevin's done an excellent summary of an excellent speech. The only thing I would add is that the criteria for exclusion need to be rational and used intelligently.

Sure.

Who gets to decide who to exclude explicitly?

How do they decide who to exclude explicitly?

How is this "excluding specific people" any different than what they did to Greg recently?

The public speaking was done well. The words were put together in a pleasing manner. The content? Standard, naïve, undergraduate garbage; where outcomes don't matter so long as the intention is good.

Pop quiz: name two of the four rules posted on the wall at the Hacker School.

[Vigilant]

Sumana Harihareswara: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly." I agree with this, and with Vigilant, above, that Kevin's done an excellent summary of an excellent speech. The only thing I would add is that the criteria for exclusion need to be rational and used intelligently.

Sure.

Who gets to decide who to exclude explicitly?

How do they decide who to exclude explicitly?

How is this "excluding specific people" any different than what they did to Greg recently?

The public speaking was done well. The words were put together in a pleasing manner. The content? Standard, naïve, undergraduate garbage; where outcomes don't matter so long as the intention is good.

Pop quiz: name two of the four rules posted on the wall at the Hacker School.

From memory:
No drive by consulting
No "Well, actually..."

That's all I can remember.

[everyking]

It's a shame that Wil's gone. If you want to discuss Wikipedia honestly, this is the place to be--there's no way to do it on Wikipedia itself without putting yourself in the line of fire (but I commend Wil for trying, of course). Yeah, you may need thick skin to post over here, but no one's going to block you for what you say.

On Wikipedia, you have to be prepared to be blocked at any time, for any reason--it's just not healthy. It burns people out, even if they don't get run off. I would advise anyone to concentrate on articles and expend no more effort on discussion than absolutely necessary. It's better to have the serious discussions here--there's no danger in it, and it's arguably more likely to be fruitful.

[Zoloft]

Sumana Harihareswara: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly." I agree with this, and with Vigilant, above, that Kevin's done an excellent summary of an excellent speech. The only thing I would add is that the criteria for exclusion need to be rational and used intelligently.

Sure.

Who gets to decide who to exclude explicitly?

How do they decide who to exclude explicitly?

How is this "excluding specific people" any different than what they did to Greg recently?

The public speaking was done well. The words were put together in a pleasing manner. The content? Standard, naïve, undergraduate garbage; where outcomes don't matter so long as the intention is good.

Pop quiz: name two of the four rules posted on the wall at the Hacker School.

From memory:
No drive by consulting
No "Well, actually..."

That's all I can remember.

So you listened to it and caught her point: link

[Vigilant]

Sumana Harihareswara: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly." I agree with this, and with Vigilant, above, that Kevin's done an excellent summary of an excellent speech. The only thing I would add is that the criteria for exclusion need to be rational and used intelligently.

Sure.

Who gets to decide who to exclude explicitly?

How do they decide who to exclude explicitly?

How is this "excluding specific people" any different than what they did to Greg recently?

The public speaking was done well. The words were put together in a pleasing manner. The content? Standard, naïve, undergraduate garbage; where outcomes don't matter so long as the intention is good.

Pop quiz: name two of the four rules posted on the wall at the Hacker School.

From memory:
No drive by consulting
No "Well, actually..."

That's all I can remember.

So you listened to it and caught her point: link

Even better, I skimmed the signpost article aka Cliff's Notes.

[Anthonyhcole]

Sumana Harihareswara: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly." I agree with this, and with Vigilant, above, that Kevin's done an excellent summary of an excellent speech. The only thing I would add is that the criteria for exclusion need to be rational and used intelligently.

Sure.

Who gets to decide who to exclude explicitly?

How do they decide who to exclude explicitly?

How is this "excluding specific people" any different than what they did to Greg recently?

That appears to have been neither rational nor intelligent. I probably should have included "informed and transparent" in the above.

[Notvelty]

So you listened to it and caught her point: link

My position is that she doesn't have a point.

To paraphrase just a part: 'With these rules, I felt that I could tell someone when they were being aggressive or domineering'.

What childish rubbish. If you need rules and formulae to be able to stand up and tell someone that their actions in a group are inappropriate, then you still belong in school. Adults should not need formulaic rules to tell them how to behave.

'Oh, but how will you stop aggressive people from grandstanding and making it uncomfortable for other people?'

Yeah, sure. The very best way to stop aggressive psychopaths taking over is to give them a legislative framework to exploit. That's works sooo well in the past.

If there are to be rules, they must be the unwritten that are established by social precedence, not by fiat from above.

Substitute formulaic rules for a workable social interface and you end up with Wikipedia, whether the rules are bent and twisted to suit the elite.

[Notvelty]

Sumana Harihareswara: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly." I agree with this, and with Vigilant, above, that Kevin's done an excellent summary of an excellent speech. The only thing I would add is that the criteria for exclusion need to be rational and used intelligently.

Sure.

Who gets to decide who to exclude explicitly?

How do they decide who to exclude explicitly?

How is this "excluding specific people" any different than what they did to Greg recently?

That appears to have been neither rational nor intelligent. I probably should have included "informed and transparent" in the above.

"Thoughtful" even.

But you haven't answered the questions.

Who decides what is "informed and transparent"? Who decides what is rational and intelligent?

All you're doing is throwing up feel-good sound-bites that run into problems when faced with real-world parameters.

I put it to you that the rules of the hackers conference encourage echo-chambers that limit the ability of members to engage in intelligent discourse outside of those chambers.

'We need some rules that stop people saying certain things to feel safe to speak'? Dear [insert deity or spaghetti-beast of choice], is "shut up" really becoming our only response?

[Randy from Boise]

P.S. What the fuck does "...experience and attitudes..." mean???

You know exactly what it means, Randy. It just makes you uncomfortable to admit that you enjoy working for a project that demands that welcomed users must be "of the body".

Hey, Greg, I just throw the batting practice pitches....

You're supposed to whack them out of the yard for the fans who showed up early, not put your bat down and call the BP pitcher a pussy...

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

It's a shame that Wil's gone. If you want to discuss Wikipedia honestly, this is the place to be--there's no way to do it on Wikipedia itself without putting yourself in the line of fire (but I commend Wil for trying, of course). Yeah, you may need thick skin to post over here, but no one's going to block you for what you say.

On Wikipedia, you have to be prepared to be blocked at any time, for any reason--it's just not healthy. It burns people out, even if they don't get run off. I would advise anyone to concentrate on articles and expend no more effort on discussion than absolutely necessary. It's better to have the serious discussions here--there's no danger in it, and it's arguably more likely to be fruitful.

He'll be back. He's on a normal learning curve, one which is very public and highly accelerated.

He'll figure it out.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Are there any editors in good standing in the house? Your intervention is needed.

Are you all cowards here?

Conserve your strength and pick your spots, Greg. Be a boxer, not a brawler...

RfB