Fair Use - Getty Images

[roger_pearse]

May I suggest that people reflect on what just happened here, in this thread?

A wikipedian came here, who was unhappy with what WP was doing and hoping for sympathy. (In fact she was wrong on points of law, and so needed to be better informed, in a sympathetic way).

But the response was not a gentle correction: instead she received a vicious and sustained attack, calculated to hurt and upset any normal person.

Naturally finding herself among trolls, she left. Like any normal person she said, "Fine. Attack me? I'm gone".

And then I find this:

Elissa has done a diva flounce, and is gone, requesting an email removal. I did so, and suspended her account per her request.

Um, I think with these words this forum just forfeited any right to criticise the brutality omnipresent in Wikipedia.

For someone to get hurt and leave is not a good thing. To jeer at the injured party for doing so as a "diva flounce" is precisely the kind of cruelty we see in Wikipedia. The complacency, the spite, the indifference to hurt in the remainder of this message -- someone is hurt, and she is treated like dirt, and responsibility placed on her? -- is very sad to see. Somebody needs to apologise to Elissa here for this, and take back responsibility for whether she leaves or not.

I'm not attacking the person who wrote these words, which is why I have snipped the name. I'm asking everyone to consider what just happened here, and what members of this forum did to a visitor.

Gentlemen ... the reason we are here is that we were all ill-treated in Wikipedia. None of us would wish to receive the abuse that Elissa received here.

Roger Pearse

[DanMurphy]

I am not here because I was ill-treated on Wikipedia. Some are of course, but I bet there are many like me (in fact, I know it).

This internet construct arrives, asks an absurd "question" (basically fishing for support for their position). Greg's was the first response - maybe not lovey dovey, but hardly nasty. He wrote:

No.

Do you mind if I fair use your car later this week? There's no other car like it, and it will be the same car when I return it to you. Oh, and I hope you don't mind if use your car in a TV commercial I'm shooting.

The response to that from the internet construct?

I was raising the question of fair using your BMW rather than your Škoda, numpty. Try looking for one in your bum.
Added: A brain cell I mean (sorry). Fair use rationale or no.

Then dogbiscuit posted asking the construct to "dial it back a notch" and addressed the new contributor with what I thought was a perfectly reasonable and polite post. Construct responds:

Erm, no. I came here to post on whether Wikipedia was consistent in its policy on Getty Images, an issue that was raised in the discussion I linked and, as often happens in Wikipedia, was not properly discussed there. I had imagined that one purpose at least of this forum was to rectify those omissions.

The second sentence of my post made it clear that I understood that many here are opposed to Wikipedia's copyright.

The Kosher's was the first response and it was negative and wilfully evaded the point. It certainly wasn't welcoming. My response was merely gently ironic.

I am retiring from this forum.

Some game was being played here (or the someone was actually that narcissistic and thin-skinned).

We expect people to behave like adults here. When they are that reflexively nasty, that quickly, the quality of their treatment is likely (fairly) to deteriorate. We aren't here to coddle the "newbies." We expect people to be well-socialized before they ring the doorbell, and to be adult enough to take disagreement with their positions in stride.

[Zoloft]

After removing her email from her member record per her request I then did one of my typical gnome edits on an article she had worked on at Wikipedia, and she thanked me. Not exactly horrible treatment. She can come back any time, although I'd prefer she not tell people to go look in their own 'bums.'

[Poetlister]

Gentlemen ... the reason we are here is that we were all ill-treated in Wikipedia. None of us would wish to receive the abuse that Elissa received here.

Roger Pearse

We do not look at all kindly on abuse of regulars by newbies - you have to earn your right to abuse others here

I suppose the point is that we are mostly Wikipedians here, so it is inevitable that Wikipedia-like ways of thinking leak across. However, I note that we are more honest here than on Wikipedia. Allegedly, the rule there is WP:BITE: experienced members are urged not to bite newbies. The reality on both sites is that newbies are not allowed to bite those with influence.

[lilburne]

The first two responses were pretty reasonable. Greg outlined that simply taking something the belonged to others wasn't right, and TC outlined that WP are cowards in that they take from those that are unlikely or unable to protect themselves.

[thekohser]

Gentlemen ...

That's presumptive, isn't it? Do we know Outsider's gender?

[Moonage Daydream]

I think Roger has a fair point. We are pretty rough on new accounts if we suspect they have supped on the WP Koolaid. We should give people the chance to engage in discussion before driving them away. Just in general. In this case there were problems right from the start.

[dogbiscuit]

Gentlemen ... the reason we are here is that we were all ill-treated in Wikipedia. None of us would wish to receive the abuse that Elissa received here.

Roger Pearse

We do not look at all kindly on abuse of regulars by newbies - you have to earn your right to abuse others here

I suppose the point is that we are mostly Wikipedians here, so it is inevitable that Wikipedia-like ways of thinking leak across. However, I note that we are more honest here than on Wikipedia. Allegedly, the rule there is WP:BITE: experienced members are urged not to bite newbies. The reality on both sites is that newbies are not allowed to bite those with influence.

I would just defend myself in two ways, I gave a mild rebuke with the intention of heading off problems (I would suggest that the above is potentially a misleading quotation in that I think the smiley was intended to convey a lightheartedness to the comment that is not portrayed without it). It is true of any group that the "banter" that goes with people who know each other is tolerated in a way that some stranger coming into the group cannot get away with.

Secondly, I then gave a fairly fulsome explanation of why there was a problem in the dismissive response to Greg's perfectly acceptable response. I think that having given the time to explain what the issues might be and why it was not an entirely obvious thing that Wikipedia should magically be allowed to use privately owned materials, then a reasonable response is to engage with that rather than express disappointment that the poster did not receive instant support and adulation for their perceptive stance.

Yes, some of the old curmudgeons here are apt to express frustration at some naive first time poster, but I don't think that it is our role after several years to have to go back to basics for every new poster that turns up, and generally speaking there is a reasonable tolerance for the range of views here given the emotions that people have with regards to Wikipedia.

[roger_pearse]

Not having a go at anyone. Just ... feeling that it all got out of hand.

The frustrations of hearing someone come out with some daft idea that we have rebutted a thousand times are entirely familiar to me. :-(

[greyed.out.fields]

Not having a go at anyone. Just ... feeling that it all got out of hand.

The frustrations of hearing someone come out with some daft idea that we have rebutted a thousand times are entirely familiar to me. :-(

Maybe a member retention/recruitment strategy is needed?

Start of with a snappy slogan like... Wikipediocracy: they're not all douche-bags!

Maybe ask for volunteers to be WPO's on-wiki ambassadors and such like?

[Zoloft]

Not having a go at anyone. Just ... feeling that it all got out of hand.

The frustrations of hearing someone come out with some daft idea that we have rebutted a thousand times are entirely familiar to me. :-(

Maybe a member retention/recruitment strategy is needed?

Start of with a snappy slogan like... Wikipediocracy: they're not all douche-bags!

Maybe ask for volunteers to be WPO's on-wiki ambassadors and such like?

Issue helmets and protective groin cups for the ambassadors...

[roger_pearse]

Maybe a member retention/recruitment strategy is needed?

Start of with a snappy slogan like... Wikipediocracy: they're not all douche-bags!

Maybe ask for volunteers to be WPO's on-wiki ambassadors and such like?

Issue helmets and protective groin cups for the ambassadors...

Bit like sticking a sign on your back saying "Kick me". :-)

[DanMurphy]

Maybe a member retention/recruitment strategy is needed?

Start of with a snappy slogan like... Wikipediocracy: they're not all douche-bags!

Maybe ask for volunteers to be WPO's on-wiki ambassadors and such like?

Issue helmets and protective groin cups for the ambassadors...

Bit like sticking a sign on your back saying "Kick me". :-)

And from the inspiration for our name: