"Participating on Wikipediocracy"
| Author |
Message |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:39 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
Sometimes there are good reasons for doing the right thing, like showing the other person the way that you would like to be treated yourself. Sometimes there are not-as-good reasons for doing the right thing, like there's nothing more frustrating to someone who wants to hurt you than not responding or, depending on the how they receive this kind of thing, responding in kindness. On the other hand, there is nothing more satisfying and reaffirming for such a person than if you strike back in kind. Besides, it just makes everyone who participates in these petty arguments look like they have nothing better to do with their time. Why would anyone want to sign up for that?
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:47 pm |
|
 |
|
thekohser
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm Posts: 7154 Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
|
Getting people to "sign up" for Wikimedia projects is not a mission goal of this site, Wil.
_________________"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:56 pm |
|
 |
|
Randy from Boise
Habitué
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am Posts: 2867 Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
|
So don't come after Greg like it's all on him. It's mutual. RfB
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:03 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:03 pm |
|
 |
|
Randy from Boise
Habitué
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am Posts: 2867 Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
|
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:07 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
Greg's actions most certainly are all on him. So are Jimmy's. And I'm not coming after anybody. I'm saying IMO it's lame that you guys name real names here for no real reason and it would be better if doxing weren't done here or anywhere else. And you guys and gals are good people. I'm pretty sure you know it's lame whether you're comfortable admitting it publicly or not.
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:09 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
Your general thesis, couched as a question, is why do we dox people since it hurts us?
First, you assume facts in my theoretical thesis. "Have you stopped beating you wife yet?" is another example.
Doxxing someone from wikipedia doesn't morally harm me. I sleep like a baby. Show me someone who has been doxxed here who didn't deserve it or who suffered in real life as a result of being doxxed.
What it does do strip away from the target any illusion that they are untouchable. This prevents them from being a dick online without repercussions. It also serves as a deterrent to other online dickheads.
I'm sure my name is used as a replacement for the boogieman in wikipedia bedtimes stories. "If you don't practice good online hygiene, the Vigilant will get you!"
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:10 pm |
|
 |
|
Peter Damian
Habitué
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm Posts: 3579 Location: London
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
|
Shifting to Romans 12:20. (Still can't resist. Last time, promise).
_________________ Man rejoices in the very consideration of truth; yet he may sometimes grieve for the thing, the truth of which he considers: it is thus that sorrow is ascribed to knowledge
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:11 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
Aww Dad! *kicks the ground with a contrite look on his face* Well, I hope you learned a valuable lesson here, son. *looks into the distance with a satisfied smile while smoking his pipe* Come on. Did you even read the Qworty aka Robert Clark Young thread I sent you? Either you didn't or you're being incredibly stupid this morning. Go back and read it. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2162Don't post in this thread until you have.
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:17 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
 |  |  |  | Vigilant wrote: Aww Dad! *kicks the ground with a contrite look on his face* Well, I hope you learned a valuable lesson here, son. *looks into the distance with a satisfied smile while smoking his pipe* Come on. Did you even read the Qworty aka Robert Clark Young thread I sent you? Either you didn't or you're being incredibly stupid this morning. Go back and read it. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2162Don't post in this thread until you have. |  |  |  |  |
TL;DR, but I know about Qworty. Did that thread out him? Vigilant, I'm incredibly stupid every morning, and I only get more stupid as the day progresses, but what does that have to do with saying that people shouldn't be fuckers?
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:29 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
Read the thread. Take the time.
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:38 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
OK, OK, I will. If you guys stop being doxing fuckers until I'm done, and we can get back to this issue proper-like. 
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:40 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
Read fast. I have super villain things to get to this weekend.
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:45 pm |
|
 |
|
Randy from Boise
Habitué
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am Posts: 2867 Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
|
Well, this doxxing thread-within-a-thread started with a tweak of Mr. Kohs's nose which has two components:
1. GK's alleged mass "doxxing" of Wikipedians — which, as I said, has a rational basis, linking the COI editing of real life people to their WP account names. Note: NOT to home addresses or phone numbers or with pleas to contact employers, etc. Simply linking names...
2. GK's treatment of Jimmy Wales's personal information — which is part of an ongoing two-way feud that's as old as the hills and twice as dusty.
Wil is for peace, love, and understanding in the 2nd case, and I agree with that.
Wil has not said a single word about the 1st case, nor has he retracted or qualified his witticism about Kohs the Heavyweight doxxer. Some thoughts on how that undeniable set of identifications fits into your ultra-idealistic worldview would be appreciated, Wil. Do you approve of what Greg does in that regard as an exercise in the defense and expansion of accuracy and transparency at Wikipedia? Or do you oppose it as a violation of a fundamental right of Wikipedians to anonymity and privacy? I'd be interested in hearing.
Greg is unrepentant about throwing heavy leather at Jimmy Wales, which is no surprise to anyone. He'll stop doing that if and when he decides he needs to stop doing that. Many people have offered their perspectives on this, both for and against.
Then there is the matter of doxxing "people who deserve it" on general principles, which Vigilant defends as a deterrent to bad behavior but which most people who post on this site would generally oppose.
That's another question altogether... Does there need to be such deterrent action? Is it productive or counterproductive? Does the deterrent effect created outweigh the negative light in which it puts this entire website? Does this sort of action improve transparency on WP or simply cause participants to hide their real life tracks better to avoid the prospect of real life harassment?
RfB
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:52 pm |
|
 |
|
thekohser
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm Posts: 7154 Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
|
I offered to take Jimbo out to breakfast when I heard he was coming to Philadelphia. His response was that he'd call the police if I came within sight of him anywhere in Philadelphia. I don't know if he had hot coals on his head when he said that, but dehydration overcame him and he had to cancel his trip to Philadelphia, so perhaps hot coals were involved. By "people", Wil... are you referring to me? If so, I wish you would just name me by proper name, then your hate speech can be banned from our congenial forum.
_________________"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:08 pm |
|
 |
|
Kelly Martin
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am Posts: 1823 Location: EN61bw
|
What's the first thing a police officer does when they start talking to someone? They ask for a name. "I like to know who I'm talking to." The simple fact is that most people are more likely to tell someone else the truth (or at least less likely to lie) when the other person knows who they are. It's a basic psychosocial dynamic, the same one that underlies introduction in social settings. You're asking us to be voluntarily stupid. The purpose of this website is not to give Wikipedians warm fuzzies; if our investigations and reporting on their misadventures and abusiveness make them uncomfortable, well, good. We want Wikipedians to be uncomfortable with the sociopathic misdeeds of their colleagues. At the same time, I don't see investigative journalism as inherently sociopathic, which is what you're trying to present. We only name the real names of people who have risen to significant prominence or who are otherwise behaving in such a manner as to be worthy of attention. We don't generally go around "doxing" random Wikipedians; doing that is a waste of time and energy.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:22 pm |
|
 |
|
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Gregarious
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm Posts: 959
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
|
In all the cases that I can remember, my request for moderators to remove a comment has resulted in suppression. In some cases, the person who wrote an inappropriate comment seems to have been given a yellow or red card, and had to sit out a match or two. More commonly a number of contributors will state that a comment was inappropriate. On Wikipediocracy, a contributor once tried to make a list of the real-life names of all members of the Arbitration Committee. That contributor's thread was squashed, and furthermore he is not allowed to link from here to an off-site blog from here, I understand.
_________________Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)You run into assholes all day; you're the asshole.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:32 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
Note that "project qworty" to clean up the thousands of bad edits by qworty was abandoned after a few weeks. Also read about LGR. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2260Explain why any of this was bad.
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:35 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
Naw. I owe you an apology for calling you out specifically, Greg. You do look up a lot of information and you post some of it here. You've looked up information on me that you've chosen not to post here, so you do exercise discretion. I don't agree that some- or most- of it that you do post is productive or necessary. But everyone who chimed in is right. I haven't seen you post anything that would put someone in danger IRL; it's usually stuff that a lot of people wouldn't call doxing at all. So, I'm sorry. Hate speech? O. . . right. Cause I'm putting down everyone who fucks.  It's also true that you've found a lot of stuff that needed to be brought to the light of day, so it has proven productive many a time. Speaking of lame, it was lame of me to call you the doxing king. Sorry.
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:50 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
 |  |  |  | Randy from Boise wrote: Well, this doxxing thread-within-a-thread started with a tweak of Mr. Kohs's nose which has two components:
1. GK's alleged mass "doxxing" of Wikipedians — which, as I said, has a rational basis, linking the COI editing of real life people to their WP account names. Note: NOT to home addresses or phone numbers or with pleas to contact employers, etc. Simply linking names...
2. GK's treatment of Jimmy Wales's personal information — which is part of an ongoing two-way feud that's as old as the hills and twice as dusty.
Wil is for peace, love, and understanding in the 2nd case, and I agree with that.
Wil has not said a single word about the 1st case, nor has he retracted or qualified his witticism about Kohs the Heavyweight doxxer. Some thoughts on how that undeniable set of identifications fits into your ultra-idealistic worldview would be appreciated, Wil. Do you approve of what Greg does in that regard as an exercise in the defense and expansion of accuracy and transparency at Wikipedia? Or do you oppose it as a violation of a fundamental right of Wikipedians to anonymity and privacy? I'd be interested in hearing.
Greg is unrepentant about throwing heavy leather at Jimmy Wales, which is no surprise to anyone. He'll stop doing that if and when he decides he needs to stop doing that. Many people have offered their perspectives on this, both for and against.
Then there is the matter of doxxing "people who deserve it" on general principles, which Vigilant defends as a deterrent to bad behavior but which most people who post on this site would generally oppose.
That's another question altogether... Does there need to be such deterrent action? Is it productive or counterproductive? Does the deterrent effect created outweigh the negative light in which it puts this entire website? Does this sort of action improve transparency on WP or simply cause participants to hide their real life tracks better to avoid the prospect of real life harassment?
RfB |  |  |  |  |
I think I got around to addressing the first in my apology to Greg. Everyone here knows how I feel about the Kohs-Wales feud. Shit, I'll just say it again for good measure. Waste. of. time. I don't believe most people deserves doxing, but I also don't agree with much of what Vigilant says about people. I will admit that I find some of it funny, but I'm honor bound to skip the personal stuff. Getting to your more global questions: You mean doxing as a deterrent? Counterproductive where it doesn't reveal stuff like coverups, false identities used to abuse others, etc. Unnecessary doxing is one of the biggest complaints about this site. That and everything Vigilant says about anybody.  I think it compromises all the insightful and frank points made here- especially participation-wise. We already know that most prominent Wikipedians read most of what's said here. I'd like to seem them join in here because these are points that currently aren't being said in many other places, and certainly not with as large an audience as WO's. On to the next question. . . Both. And, BTW, I've seen some reactions by people on-wiki to the mere thought of get mentioned here. They are scared to shitless. If they aren't trying to hide something, abusing their power, or being complete dBags in some way, I don't think they have much to fear. That's just the reputation of Wikipediocracy that you guys/gals have created over tim. Personally, I think you're all nice guys, and I haven't met a single one of you who isn't well worth hearing out. That said, many people believe harassment is a regular thing here, and I get questions all the time about why I participate on a site where harassment is so common. Then I point to wikimedia-l and that's the end of the conversation. I just wish everyone else knew that you were nice, well meaning guys and gals. They can't seem to get past the shit talking, so they are missing a lot. Tragic.
_________________ ,Wil
Last edited by wllm on Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:13 pm |
|
 |
|
thekohser
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm Posts: 7154 Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
|
Apology accepted. By the way, Jimbo's full divorce document on MyWikiBiz is currently not available, as my site suffered some sort of attack last night at midnight that crashed the server. This is the second such attack in four days. (The first one, I alerted the ISP from which it emanated, and they assured that they took corrective measures, and my host will block that IP from accessing MyWikiBiz.com again.)
_________________"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:14 pm |
|
 |
|
Kelly Martin
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am Posts: 1823 Location: EN61bw
|
From Wikipedians. As we've noted, we don't really care all that much what Wikipedians say about this site; they are not our target audience. (And, as you note, they all read it obsessively anyway.) Furthermore, it's completely unsurprising that they think our investigative research into editor identities is "unnecessary"; they think any such investigation is unnecessary and intrusive (except, of course, when they do it) because they have attitudes on privacy and identity security that are extreme by public standards. The "dark side of the Internet" has a culture of evading responsibility through anonymity (and pretending that this amounts to "free speech"); combating this necessarily entails invading the "private space" of people behaving like this. This is especially true given how wide such people try to draw their "private space". I repeat, we are not here to make Wikipedians happy. We are here to educate the public, and if doing so requires that we punch holes in the farcical veil of privacy that Wikipedians believe they are entitled to, so be it. The "reputation" of Wikipediocracy within the Wikipedia community is based far more on lies and innuendo than it is truth. It barely matters how we actually behave. Many Wikipedians believe that this site is anti-Semitic and if you ask around you'll find some who will say that it's a front site for Stormfront. Doesn't make it true. Wikipedia is the largest defamation engine on the Internet; small wonder that they defame us too.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:36 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
Well, for the record, I think that's a clear case of harassment. If you can definitely connect that IP to someone on Wikipedia, it might be an instance where I would find it appropriate to publicly name them here. And that's somewhat particular to Greg (this is an important fact I overlooked before), because he can't take his grievances on-en.Wiki. That is probably the worst way to handle a determined critic. Someone who can't discuss it on-wiki will take the message off-wiki and often in very public places, which is not a huge concern of mine but keeps many Wikipedians up at night. The discussion also becomes completely indirect and more hostile as the Wikipedia community faces more consequences from bad press. WikiCon (getting back on topic) is a classic case. Sometimes I wonder if anyone really thought these policies through. So, Net/net I've changed my mind in that revealing some personal information is warranted in cases of abuse of authority/power/or simply harassment; there may be no other way to seek justice in these cases. I still think there are lots of instances where no reasonable criteria is met where it is not ethical or moral, and I wish that wouldn't happen so more people could see that you guys/gals are necessary for the continued improvement if WP would start learning its lessons. That shit is still lame. I believe I do understand the issue a bit better; maybe I do have a way to go before I fully understand it. Thanks all. I'ma go read that thread Vigilant linked to now.
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:44 pm |
|
 |
|
Kelly Martin
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am Posts: 1823 Location: EN61bw
|
If Wikipedia had a meaningful and productive way to resolve grievances internally (instead of externally), this site would probably not exist. Remember, Wikipedia has the power to make Wikipediocracy go away. We're quite clear on what they need to do.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:47 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
I see your point. Tho, like you said you're here to educate the public and much of the stuff I'm talking about will also make the public question the value of the site, too. Yes, Wikipediocracy has definitely become a boogiesite of sorts in the Wikipedia community. The visceral reaction stunned me. But a few people have mentioned that it's getting more interesting and less personal around here lately. Someone brought up Stormfront on my talk page a few days ago. I think it was just a hypothetical question, but it certainly was related to Wikipediocracy. I answered it and didn't think much else of it. One I hear a lot more often is the GNAA. That's a hard one; I'm not even sure what it is, but I do know the name is designed specifically for maximum offense. IIUC there have been members of the GNAA here, but aren't there a bunch on Wikipedia itself? And you're right, I've heard a whole panoply of criticisms of WO. Having gotten to know both better, if you compare the criticisms that WO has about WP and vice versa, I think it's clear that WO's representation of WP is much more accurate. But that's exactly what gets to me. It's just the superficial shit that people are likely to dismiss what you have to say, and not the substance. We've gone over this before, tho. It is your forum, I'm just one member here, and certainly I would want you to run it in the way you feel is best.
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:01 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
Ah, interesting. You answered the question I totally forgot to ask in my last post. I was going to pose the hypothetical of Wikipedia addressing the issues that seem to be a more or less stable fixture here, along with a robust and transparent way to resolve disputes. If, in this hypothetical situation, Wikipediocracy were to actually go away (I don't think I'd want that to happen, actually) where would all of you go? About a third of the membership here is banned or indef blocked, correct? Do you think part of the solution has to be to get those who are interested back on-wiki?
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:06 pm |
|
 |
|
Randy from Boise
Habitué
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am Posts: 2867 Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
|
Don't dodge this one, Wil. See: the "Obvious Paid Editors Are Obvious" thread... RfB
Last edited by Randy from Boise on Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:11 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
You missed the real Hate Speech, Greg.  I gotta type a little slower.
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:19 pm |
|
 |
|
Kelly Martin
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am Posts: 1823 Location: EN61bw
|
It wasn't "hypothetical", it was an attempt at defamation by innuendo. Wikipedians (at least some of them) excel at such shenanigans. GNAA is a trolling organization: they troll for the fun of it, to get a rise out of people. They have no discernable agenda otherwise. There are indeed GNAA members here, although not many, and they are kept on a fairly short leash here. There are many more GNAA members on Wikipedia, including many whose role in GNAA is not well-known. Some are admins. Wikipedia's extreme attitude on personal privacy provides a lot of cover for such sociopaths to operate without much check. They're all over the Wikimedia IRC channels. There's a fairly strong nexus between the GNAA and Encyclopedia Dramatica. These are the sort of people who engage in vindictive doxxing, as well as simply random doxxing (doxxing someone "for the lulz", with the intention of causing injury simply for the fun of doing so). Such behavior is unquestionably sociopathic, and really should not be tolerated, but, of course, we here have no control over the behavior of others. I disagree with you, by the way, that the public will view our investigative journalism as problematic. It might be viewed that way by that subset of Internet-addicted man-children who are actively seeking to preserve their libertarian right to do whatever they want on the Internet without consequence, but honestly we don't expect that sociopathic subset of society to really appreciate what we're doing. Most reasonable people will understand that we're doing what we're doing for a proper purpose and appreciate it as such.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:19 pm |
|
 |
|
Randy from Boise
Habitué
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am Posts: 2867 Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
|
I don't feel the Wikipediocracy gays are oppressing me. tim
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:22 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
I think I missed a "here" or something to. Blarg. I don't even remember what I was trying to say.  ,Wil
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:28 pm |
|
 |
|
Kelly Martin
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am Posts: 1823 Location: EN61bw
|
I imagine some of our membership would return to Wikipedia (the ones who aren't already there). Others would simply transfer the investment here to other things in their lives that interest them. Whether or not I would return to Wikipedia would depend on what changes Wikipedia made. As I think it exceedingly unlikely that Wikipedia will ever actually reform itself in a manner that substantially addresses Wikipediocracy's chief complaints, it's far more likely that this site will go away when its internal politics become untenable for some reason. While at the moment we all get along fairly well, it's always possible that something will happen (e.g. we invite a new trustee who doesn't work out causing a schism, or one of the trustees does something to upset the others in a way that cannot be reconciled). In this event, I would imagine that another Wikipedia criticism site will arise to replace us, the way Wikipediocracy arose to replace Wikipedia Review when that site's internal politics became untenable.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:29 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
I'd go on to other things. Had I not been shit on and watched others get shit on, I'd have left after warning them about Merkey.
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:39 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
Thanks for bringing this back up, Tim. Where does this fundamental right derive from?
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:41 pm |
|
 |
|
wllm
Critic
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 10:10 pm Posts: 283
Wikipedia User: wllm
Actual Name: Wil Sinclair
|
I'm pretty sure that's covered territory. But I'll go over it again point by point. I'm saying more than a single word about the 1st case. I retract my "witticism" about Kohs, and I qualify it as true only if the sun revolves around the earth. I approve of Greg outing information to expose abuse of power or individuals, and I believe that he has no means to do that on-wiki. I have no preference between the WO or the press, but I think many on WP would actually prefer the WO if they had to choose between the two. COI's I have to get back to everyone on; I just don't understand enough about the *many* forms they can take. That is one tricky issue. Is there a fundamental right to anonymity and privacy on WP? I thought it was just an assurance implemented in the software. In any case, no, I think it's a personal choice for Greg or anyone else considering posting such information. It's similar to the choice a whistleblower faces, and I believe whistleblowers are necessary and have an important role in ensuring transparency. So the only thing that I can do is oppose undue consequences for them and hope that they are acting in good faith while keeping other people in mind. I'm interested that you're interested. 
_________________ ,Wil
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:42 pm |
|
 |
|
Kelly Martin
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am Posts: 1823 Location: EN61bw
|
This really is a key issue. Wikipedia isn't willing to squarely address the fundamental conflict between having transparency in its processes and having anonymity and privacy for its community. Historically, they've resolved this conflict in favor of anonymity and privacy, making their claims of "transparency" promotional lies that people nonetheless buy (and which are supported by the claim that "the edit history is always available" even when it's not). People nonetheless continue to trumpet how "transparent" Wikipedia is, and for me, at least, the rank hypocrisy is quite galling. And it is, for me at least, the degree to which the Wikipedia community is hypocritical about transparency helps to justify our aggressive investigations into the identities of Wikipedians who are involved in behaviors that are in violation either of Wikipedia's own rules, or what we believe to be reasonable expectations of how persons engaged in an encyclopedia project ought to behave.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:43 pm |
|
 |
|
Midsize Jake
Trustee
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm Posts: 2042
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
|
That's a case-by-case thing, actually - several our members would probably never be tolerated on Wikipedia again no matter what sort of reforms they put in place. Too much bad blood, but I'd say there are only about a dozen or two such those cases. As for me, I've always said I might start an account on Wikipedia if certain reforms were implemented, but since they'll never implement those reforms, it's really an empty statement. If Wikipediocracy were to go away in spite of that, I guess I'm on a couple of other forums and such-like... but very few online pursuits offer the kind of continuously ongoing comedy potential that Wikipedia (and criticism thereof) does. So I'm forced to admit that Wikipedia reform would be very difficult for me to cope with personally, but I'm sure that with diligence, imagination, creativity, and massive quantities of anti-depressants, I could probably find something to fill the gap eventually.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:48 pm |
|
 |
|
Kelly Martin
Trustee
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am Posts: 1823 Location: EN61bw
|
It is impossible to have and enforce a meaningful policy on conflict of interest by editors without editor identification. If editors are not required to identify and are protected from being identified by others, then there can be no policing, other than self-policing, of the conflict of interest rules because you can't know what someone's interests are unless you know who they are. This is yet another situation where the Wikipedian demand for absolute privacy conflicts with reasonable expectations for an encyclopedia project, and the repeated decisions by the Wikipedia community to prioritize anonymity over responsibility is a large part of why so many of us deny that Wikipedia deserves to be called an encyclopedia.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:50 pm |
|
 |
|
Randy from Boise
Habitué
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am Posts: 2867 Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
|
I'll answer for myself: I'm 100% supportive of what Greg does identifying undeclared COI editors with their real name and employment connection vs. their WP name and activities on wiki. It calls attention to the pervasiveness of this problem and brings bad editing by bad editors under community scrutiny. I think the "right" to anonymity is present only in a very few cases of editors who work in extremely litigious subject areas such as, for example, Scientology. Generally speaking it is a phony right that is abused, enabling the use of multiple accounts or tendentious editing to advance an agenda. I think transparency of content v. anonymity of contributors are in almost complete opposition. Given the choice, I am for the quality of the encyclopedia, not for the comfort of its contributors. That said: I fully understand that I myself can't do what Greg Kohs is doing under WP rules. I am a realist. RfB
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:53 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
Have Jimbo apologize publicly and I'm sure this would die down. Drop a line on his talk page. We don't dox most people. We dox the worst of the worst. Try counting the number of times we've doxxed people. You won't have to take off your shoes to count that high, I promise. Show me where I've been wrong. Bully for you. Has this failed to work? Where do we do this? You're making allegations that are unsupported by any evidence. Tits or GTFO Show me where I'm factually wrong. Don't handwave. Don't be lazy with accusations. Take a moment and draw your arguments out. I think lazy accusations make you look like a puddin' head. All the drama board participants read here. All of them. How many article creators, FA/GA authors, wikignomes read here? On to the next windmill, Señor Quixote. They should be. Quite. They've constructed monsters to represent us that more closely resemble what they see in the mirror. *blush* So common on wikipedia with the kool-aid drinkers that there should be an internet meme generator about it.
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:54 pm |
|
 |
|
Midsize Jake
Trustee
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm Posts: 2042
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
|
Why would you think that? You're a software guy - there are all sorts of ways they could build or modify MediaWiki, some without even much difficulty, that would make it vastly more supportive of a given user/editor's desire not to be identified. The reality is, they, the Wikipedians, have to (or at least think they have to) be able to identify the user behind any given edit, so that they can evaluate the reputation behind the user account as part of their evaluation of whatever content is being added or removed (and why). They call it "pseudonymity," and without it - i.e., simply displaying the edits in a list with no user names or IP addresses at all - actually identifying Wikipedia users IRL would be impossible. This is a fundamental part of the system; there is no "right" involved. If anything, Wikipedia systematically makes editor-identification far, far easier than a traditional paper encyclopedia would, if that paper encyclopedia allowed its contributors to publish anonymously.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:03 pm |
|
 |
|
Anthonyhcole
Regular
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am Posts: 452
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole
|
Vigilant. I just read the Little Green Rosetta thread. I wondered what became of that turd. Thank you; and you too Eric, and others.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:14 pm |
|
 |
|
Peter Damian
Habitué
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm Posts: 3579 Location: London
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
|
Wikipedians love to compare themselves heroically to the anonymous pamphleteers of the seventeenth century. They believe that unless they are anonymous, there can be no freedom of speech. We have a right to freedom of speech, therefore Wikipedians have right to anonymity. But this is upside down. From the book, chapter on John Seigenthaler:  |  |  |  | Quote: It is yet another example of how no special theory is needed to explain Wikipedia. No rocket science is needed to explain what happens if you put up a picture of a person on a wall in a highly visible or public space. It will attract graffiti of two kinds only, neither of any use or interest, or of relevance to bringing the sum of human knowledge to everyone. This is not news. The same thing happened after the invention of printing, with the emergence of the ‘pamphlet’ – a form of cheaply produced publication that emerged in the late sixteenth century, spawned by developments in printing and publishing, and by the religious conflicts that had erupted across Europe. The term ‘pamphlet’was pejorative even then, connoting slight, ephemeral, untrustworthy rubbish, appealing to the credulity of the vulgar only. Pamphlets were held in low regard by educated people, viewed as little more than a conduit for reformation propaganda, ballads describing monstrous births, and (of course) political libel. The word ‘libel’ is derived from the Latin libellus, ‘a small book’, and acquires its connotation from the defamatory French libelles, scurrilous attacks on pre-revolutionary French public figures such as Mazarin, for the most part crude satirical verses or burlesques, or recirculated derogatory gossip.
Today, the pamphleteers are regarded as exemplars of the liberal enlightenment and, by some, as heroically anticipating today’s bloggers. The Wikipedia article on them celebrates Thomas Paine as ‘a famous pamphleteer of the American Revolutionary War’, and comments that ‘today a pamphleteer might communicate his missives by way of weblog’. But many of them were pretty unenlightened. The eighteenth century pamphleteer William Romaine referred to Jews as ‘frequently crucifying children on Good Friday in Contempt and Mockery of Christ’s Crucifixion’ .In 1580s England, the trial and execution of Edmund Campion in 1581 led to a vicious ‘pamphlet war’ between Catholics and Protestants, consisting of a thousand ‘slaunderous pamphlets and seditious libels’. A pamphlet by William Allen denounced Elizabeth as ‘an incestuous bastard, begotten and borne in sinne, of an infamous curtesan’ .
|  |  |  |  |
_________________ Man rejoices in the very consideration of truth; yet he may sometimes grieve for the thing, the truth of which he considers: it is thus that sorrow is ascribed to knowledge
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:22 pm |
|
 |
|
Zoloft
Site Admin
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm Posts: 6210 Location: San Diego
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
|
Recently we did move a considerable amount of discussions about formerly-prominent Wikipedians into an area not visible to Google. We don't do that, in general, for folks currently committing abuses or furthering bullying or corruption. Sunshine, as they say, is a disinfectant.
_________________ ♪♫ Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ♫♪
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:26 pm |
|
 |
|
everyking
Critic
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:31 am Posts: 173
Wikipedia User: Everyking
Wikipedia Review Member: Everyking
|
Ultimately all of the people who've been banned for expressing opinions or taking the wrong side in a dispute or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time need to be welcomed back--and Wikipedia needs to become a more friendly and welcoming place in general, and a place where real, constructive dialogue can happen. I can't speak for everyone, but for me that's a fundamental goal.
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:47 pm |
|
 |
|
Vigilant
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm Posts: 7383
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
|
I am pretty sure he has moved on. I still have all his real life info and snapshots of his Facebook friends. If I found him back to his old tricks, I would drop the dime, especially the sexual tourism, on his friends list and to Ernest Froman.
_________________ Whiners!
|
| Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:57 pm |
|
 |
|
GorillaWarfare
Member
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:22 pm Posts: 2
Wikipedia User: GorillaWarfare
Wikipedia Review Member: GorillaWarfare
Actual Name: Molly White
|
I'm not sure where you and Triptych have gotten the impression that I was paid to appear in the fundraising banners. Like other work I do with Wikipedia, it was volunteer (save the development work I did on MediaWiki in summer 2013, which was not paid by the WMF, but that's another point...). I was surprised to receive an email from someone who claimed I'd contacted them on Elance to offer my services editing their Wikipedia page. I searched my name on Elance, and found the same page Mr. Kohs mentions here. Since they posted my real email address, I assumed it was someone trying to make me look bad, not trying to make money off of pretending to me, so I came here to see if it had been mentioned. Somehow Mr. Kohs knew about it before I even received an email—how odd. Either way, I've contacted Elance's support, and hopefully it will be removed soon. Also, hi everyone.
|
| Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:06 am |
|
 |
|
Zoloft
Site Admin
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm Posts: 6210 Location: San Diego
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
|
 We appreciate you making an appearance here.
_________________ ♪♫ Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ♫♪
|
| Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:08 am |
|
 |
|
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am Posts: 2040
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide
|
I doubt Greg did that, maybe someone playing him. 
|
| Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:32 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|