QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 4th March 2007, 7:19am)
QUOTE(Olivier Besancenot @ Sun 4th March 2007, 3:28pm)
I was just
blocked for "personal attacks" due to a comment I left on EssJay's talk page.
Well as the 'cultish cabal'er' that blocked you, I have only one question. Why is it that when people are blocked for an inability to conduct a civil rational debate, they run here and try to pass themselves off as heroic martyrs to free-speech?
I've had a lot of disagreements with folk that post here, but even I don't thing they are stupid or bloody-minded enough to confuse inarticulate incivility with nobility of cause.
Well, I guess I'm one of those that disagree with you here, Doc. Wikipedia tries to have it both ways: be an
"encyclopedia anyone can edit", but insisting on these vague notions of AGF, NPA, and NPOV. If you are going to invite into your reference work any teenager, zealot, bigot, and high-school dropout who has a computer and only enough brain cells to hit the <Enter> key, then you are going to get postings you don't like. You're going to get flat-earthers, segregationists, religious zealots, and every other kind of nutcase you can imagine, and you're also going to get people who may be none of the above, but whose idea of "telling the truth" may upset those of more refined or delicate constitutions.
In most liberal society, we make the judgement that the best antidote to bad (or hateful) speech is
more speech, not less. Wikipedia gets this wrong. The definition of a "personal attack" is so vague and shifting that it serves as one of those laws that everyone, at one point or another, breaks, making iits selective enforcement a mechanism to purge those you don't like.
This selective enforcement (and interpretation) reinforces the role of power in Wikipedia. If SlimVirgin launches a "personal attack"
("You make no contribution .. all you are is trouble") on Kim van der Linde, for example, it is explained away, oversighted, or just plain ignored. But if a normal, or perhaps sub-normal (inexperienced) editor makes an equally strong statement (
"Essjay is a liar"), then it's a personal attack, and if there is an admin around with an interest in defending the topic, his turf, or some generalized-but-unstated Wiki ethos, down comes the block-hammer.
Mr. Besancenot will survive his 48-hour block without ill effect, no doubt. However, a subset of admins seem to only have an "indefinite" setting on their block button, which is often applied to anyone who seriously disagrees with them on their favortite topics. Others, lke Jayjg, routinely fish with Checkuser to ban everything he doesn't like (
"it's a Tor proxy!", "vandalism-only account!", "reincarnation of blocked user"). These people, like Essjay, contribute to making Wikipedia a laughing-stock. Admins like you, Mr. Glasgow, serve to perpetuate that
status quo. Whether that makes you part of the problem or merely a bystander I do not know, but I won't be taking any advice on civility from you or any other Wikipedia admin until you clean house.
This post has been edited by gomi: