QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th September 2008, 5:49pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 24th September 2008, 4:05pm)
I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.
I disagree, but perhaps we can agree to disagree...
A social contract is a set of promises made voluntarily. It has nothing to do with the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation. Covenents and Social Contracts were devised as a sane alternative to Hammurabi's Idiotic Idea.
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th September 2008, 5:49pm)
QUOTE
With respect to the
E-Mail addresses of the responsible officials and respondents at ArbCom, you will note that they are openly published at Wikipedia.
Are you saying that the "full headers" of the e-mails in question contained
only a reply-to/from address, already available on a WMF site, with no IP address or server routing information whatsoever?
Go
read what I posted, verbatim. Do you see any headers?
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 24th September 2008, 6:05pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 24th September 2008, 12:23pm)
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 24th September 2008, 12:45pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 24th September 2008, 6:34am)
I accept that it is an egregious and unforgivable violation of WMF policy to
Bear Accurate Witness in accordance with the
Principles of Scholarly Ethics, and that I will
predictably be roundly excoriated, blocked, banned, bound, gagged, kicked, and unceremoniously locked up in the hall closet for having the
temerity chutzpah to engage in
authentic scholarship. So be it.
If it was good enough for Socrates, Beckett, Galileo, Mendel, and Darwin, Piaget, and Speilrein, it's good enough for me.
Knock off the martyr routine. You've been engaged in a crusade, not scholarship. The only reason you've gotten blocked and your talk page protected at WV is because you made damn sure they had no other choice. I have a hard time believing you didn't know exactly what would happen when you posted an email with the full header on your talk page.
The Greek word
martyr means witness. In cyberspace one doesn't have to die to bear witness. And even if they try to kill off one's avatar for having unmitigated gall to bear accurate witness, the act of annihilation is futile, since it's only an Internet avatar.
What I posted was a copy of
outgoing mail from me to ArbCom. It didn't have any headers on it because copies of outgoing mail
have no headers, full stop.
QUOTE
At least Rosalind Picard has the good sense to realize that Wikipedia is, in the big picture, not that big of a deal. Really, getting your user space deleted was "
reminiscent of Kristalnacht"? Is that your "scholarly" assessment? Remind me, just how many people died as a result of that deletion? Arrested? Injured? Lost property? Really bad paper cut?
Do you realize that what was in my userspace was evidence used to convict FeloniousMonk (and also to indict the rest of IDCab). Rosalind Picard has less than zero interest in the fate of FeloniousMonk, a disposable avatar whose name she is entirely unaware of.
However, you might bother to ask Ottava Rima what he knows about
Don Hopkins or the others who published false and defamatory BLPs on Wikipedia.
QUOTE
Frankly, I don't think I plan on supporting any unblock action on WV until you can stop acting like a jackass. Like the latter part of Norman McLaren's short film Neighbours (
from my sig), you seem to have lost all perspective regarding any tangible goal, and just fight for the sake of the fight.
My goals have been
published on my talk page for over a year.
They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).
What died was any claim to being an authentic encyclopedia, crafted by authentic scholars with authentic credentials, who defend their scholarship with authentic peer review.
Ah, so deleting your user space was the end of scholarship on WP. Now where have I heard that particular brand of egotism before? That's right, it's the same as the "IDCAB", when they've equated opposing their behavior with being "anti-science".
There has never been any scholarship on WP. It is against the rules to engage in scholarship on WP.
QUOTE
The blame for your experience at WV failing to reach Kohlberg level 5 lies primarily with you and your overblown ego, Moulton. A social contract would involve a little give-and-take, meaning that you occasionally listen to others when they tell you your behavior is inappropriate, and change accordingly. You insisted on doing things your way to the detriment of other editors, so you got tossed, and I didn't see anyone terribly surprised that it happened (only at the way it went down). Frankly, your love for bringing up Kohlberg's model might be a little more convincing if I saw a little evidence you understood any of it.
Kohlberg Level Four behavior is, by definition, inappropriate in a community that evolves and advances from Level Four to Level 5. Anankastic Machiavellianism is anathema to Kolhberg Level 5 and higher.
QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 24th September 2008, 6:15pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 24th September 2008, 12:23pm)
They had another choice. They could have decided to advance from Kohlberg Level Four (Anankastic Machiavellianism) to Kohlberg Level Five (Rawlsian Social Contract Model).
So if it was you and JWScmidt vs... the entire rest of the WMF, did you ever even consider you may the one that's wrong, or are you too smart to admit that that you weren't smart enough?
"Think about right and wrong, and one immediately falls into error." —Taoist Proverb
"If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind." —
Seng-Ts'an QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th September 2008, 6:21pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 24th September 2008, 3:05pm)
I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.
The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by tautological definition) be mutually agreeable terms of engagement. If one of those terms embraced anonymity (instead of authenticated bona fides as a credentialed scholar), then that would become a defining characteristic of the site. If the anonymous characters presented themselves as 1) garbed in animal costumes and 2) not subscribers to or adherents of Scholarly Ethics, then I would likely apprehend the site to be a variety of Post-Modern Theater (perhaps even a Theater of the Absurd) modeled after Cats or FurryMuck or Wikipedia.
The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a
mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.
It's not that I do not accept the legitimacy of rules. It's that I understand rules to define a class of system known as a "game". In general such rule-driven systems may take on the character of a drama rather than a simple game (like chess). However, rule-driven systems are what they are (and are generally not what most people obliviously imagine them to be). Mathematicians have known for well over a century that rule-driven systems are mathematically chaotic.
QUOTE
Of course I am interpreting here and Moulton might care to correct my understanding.
The reason I propose to evolve from dysfunctional rule-driven systems to function-driven systems is because function-driven systems are functional. I prefer functional systems to dysfunctional ones. (So did Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Augustine, Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Lagrange, Poincare, Einstein, Gandhi, King, von Neumann, Feynman, etc, etc. It's not exactly a new idea.)
QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 24th September 2008, 6:22pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th September 2008, 3:21pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 24th September 2008, 3:05pm)
I am not familiar with the notion of a "legalistically-oriented social contract" as that would be an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.
The mutually agreeable terms of engagement (whatever they might turn out to be) would (by tautological definition) be mutually agreeable terms of engagement. If one of those terms embraced anonymity (instead of authenticated bona fides as a credentialed scholar), then that would become a defining characteristic of the site. If the anonymous characters presented themselves as 1) garbed in animal costumes and 2) not subscribers to or adherents of Scholarly Ethics, then I would likely apprehend the site to be a variety of Post-Modern Theater (perhaps even a Theater of the Absurd) modeled after Cats or FurryMuck or Wikipedia
The way I have come to understand Moulton is that it is his view that absent a
mutual agreement between himself and the sites he participates on he does not accept the legitimacy of the any rules, be they "community" or provided by the operators of the site. Moulton is then free to engage in behaviors, obnoxious to others, that he would almost certainly be willing to "trade off" in the course forming the "social contract." The only limits he then recognizes are whatever external ethics he brings with him.
Moulton, can you clarify if GBG is correct? That's what I'd always, thought, too.
GBG has formed a flight of fancy unsupported by solid evidence, sound reasoning, or coherent analysis. However I give him credit for submitting it to scholarly peer review by a subject matter expert on Moulton's mindset.
I hope you are now disabused of GBG's amusing flight of fancy.