QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 9th August 2009, 8:18pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 9th August 2009, 6:51pm)
Godwin.
I know Godwin from the W.E.L.L., by the way. My introduction to on-line community, much of Abd Thought comes out of that experience.
QUOTE
For reasons that you can all work out, Abd and I will probably stop commenting here.
Speak for yourself. I trust the Committee; the finding of fact is accurate, we were uncivil to each other here. They haven't yet proposed making anything of that. And even if they did, I value my freedom of speech in RL, and compared to Wikipedia this is RL, more than I do my participation in Wikipedia. When in Rome, do as the Romans do; I used the local idiom; on Wikipedia, if necessary, I'd call an editor "uncivil." Here, I'll call him an "asshole." Those words mean the same thing, in fact.
Consensus process requires setting that crap aside, hence Wikipedia has rules, and eventually we will see the incivility policy enforced even more tightly; it will be, outside of necessity, just as prohibited to call an editor uncivil as to call him an asshole. I don't mind being admonished even for outside incivility, I'm not going to wikilawyer it away with "but that's outside and rule 237 says that editors can't be sanctioned for outside actions." Besides, see, I like it that Raul quoted what I said about you and him.
The really crazy thing is that Raul seems to believe that the community would immediately be shocked! shocked! at this.
I've learned a trick from ScienceApologist. It's a dangerous one, I won't use it often. Say what people are thinking but they have been afraid to say.
QUOTE
Please ban us! We have committed the ultimate wikipedia crime. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/ohnoes.gif)
QUOTE
Abd and Mathsci have engaged in personal attacks upon each other during public discussion of this case in an off-wiki venue.
The off-wiki venue that dares not speaks it name.
Oh, it will be mentioned and linked. My action will be to ask that the link be to the full discussion, not just to a piece abstracted from it. The specific posts can be shown, that's fine, but anyone who's worth his or her salt as a critic will want to see the context. In spite of claims that this is the highest pile of bullshit ever on Wikipedia Review, I did, last night, reread the whole thing. There is lot here, this discussion actually lays out and exposes a great deal.
Yes, if someone wants to understand what is actually going on with the complex ad-hoc structure that is Wikipedia, it might take some serious study, some serious time. My perspective is just one, I'd suggest noticing what got some traction here and what didn't.
This post has been edited by Abd: