| |
 Joshua Zelinsky: The Video, How the heck did we miss this? |
|
|
| Moulton |
 Mon 17th December 2007, 11:48am
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Daniel Brandt |
Mon 17th December 2007, 3:20pm
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,472
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77
|
It was posted by someone else, who has over 40 videos on YouTube. The mention of Hopkins in the context of Joshua's brother is a reference to Hopkins School, a local private school where Aaron graduated in 2002. Aaron graduated from Yale in '06, and Joshua graduated in '07. Aaron is now at Yale Law, class of 2010. Joshua has always been one year behind his fraternal-twin brother.
Aaron is apparently a popular student — the video mentions him as student body president of Hopkins. He was also a debater at Yale. It's possible that Joshua followed his brother into Yale Law, which would mean he started there just a few months ago, but I cannot find anything on this.
The fact that this post has more to say about Aaron than Joshua is no doubt something that has happened again and again to Joshua. Their family lives in New Haven, where Hopkins and Yale are located. I believe the parents are Edward A. and Doris Zelinsky, both of whom are notable. Maybe they'd like biographies in Wikipedia!
When Aaron gets his law degree, maybe he'll be a law-firm partner within a few years, and can hire Joshua to kick butt on vicious legal briefs. I don't think Joshua will be arguing much in front of juries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
Mon 17th December 2007, 4:59pm
|
Can't actually moderate
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,814
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Y'know, I never thought I'd end up making a statement like this, but this is just such an obvious case, and somebody has to say it. A long time ago, before I was a member here, there was a big brouhaha because two or three people - I think Lir was one of them, in fact - suggested that physically unattractive people can sometimes become unusually abusive online, more so than might otherwise be considered typical, as a form of subconscious retaliation for their feeling unwanted or unpopular. Needless to say, a lot of people felt this was insensitive and unfair, and indeed it was. But how can you look past something like this? It is, quite simply, a perfectly legitmate and logical explanation for his apparent near-hatred of well-known, successful people. JoshuaZ has, on multiple occasions, stated that those whom "Wikipedia" considers "notable" not only deserve to be profiled in WP, they actually forfeit their rights to privacy if they became notable because of their own activities. Putting aside the obvious question of whether this means that the Wikipedians themselves therefore forfeit these same rights, one has to consider the chilling effect this might have on individuals who have socially beneficial ideas, but who might from now on keep those ideas to themselves - because they value their privacy too much to let it fall into the hands of a website full of anonymous goons with "Edit" buttons. This statement, posted during the Angela Beesley DRV, showed up only a week ago (boldface mine): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=176902386QUOTE(JoshuaZ @ 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)) I'd rather not have this DRV now but if we're going to have it now overturn. I continue to maintain my position that courtesy deletion for people who are ''willing public figures'' is uncalled for and almost ridiculous. I understand cases like Brian Peppers where the person in question has become notable in a completely unwilling fashion, but people who are notable precisely because they have injected themselves into public sphere simply do not have the same rights. Furthermore, in such cases we as a whole owe our readers to have articles about them. I find this particular disturbing in a case where the subject of the article has a website devoted to promoting herself. Note the term "injected themselves into," which he added later when correcting a typo. It originally said "taken actions in." (They also would have added the word "the," of course.) Most people would use a term like "promoted themselves in," or simply "entered," but Josh here apparently sees the attainment of personal success and notoriety to be almost a form of parasitism. (Even so, Angela Beesley hasn't "injected herself into the public sphere" in a personal sense. She was involved in the founding of a major website, sure, but that was hardly self-promotion. She also has a site of her own, but in a culture that values "transparency" as highly as Wikimedia does, she'd probably be considered suspect if she didn't maintain such a site.) The idea that people like Joshua Zelinsky can make value judgements about a person's motivations in doing things that make him or her a public figure, deliberately or not, represents an extremely dangerous proposition. And even if we give JoshuaZ the benefit of the doubt on any given case, which I don't, the question of "willing notoriety" is beside the point. The point is that special considerations have to be made for a website that anyone can anonymously edit, which is run by people who are often prone to personal vendettas and revenge fantasies, and which has a near-ubiquitous presence on most major search engines. But it seems as though he totally refuses to accept that one simple principle, no matter how often it's repeated - and not just by us, but by well-meaning, decent people on Wikipedia as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
| dtobias |
Mon 17th December 2007, 5:17pm
|
Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
I think he has a point, actually, in that when somebody intentionally involves themself in the public sphere, they inherently become, to some extent, fair game for commentary and criticism. I believe this in an evenhanded manner, meaning that it applies to Wikipedia bigshots and their critics alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
Mon 17th December 2007, 5:21pm
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
Uncharismatic people who are otherwise talented are likely to direct their talents toward endeavors which do not include meeting the public. The advent of text-based social networking cultures on the Internet may attract uncharismatic participants in the same way that careers in radio or print journalism attract participants who are not photogenic enough to be competitive on TV.
Joshua is no doubt quite familiar with the advice of Hillel, who said, "That which is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man. That is the whole of the (Jewish) Law. All the rest is mere commentary."
Inversely, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So, we've all taken a gander at Josh, and some would like to cook his goose in the spaghetti sauce du jour.
If there is an epiphany in this story for Josh, I imagine it might be the application of an instance of Hillel's Law, which suggests that totemic dominance hierarchies aren't quite so linear as one might initially imagine.
I dunno if Josh is an Aspie or not, but if he is, he might have a stronger abhorrence of being coerced than your average NeuroTypical. If so, it would behoove him to be mindful of Hillel's insight, and eschew the practice of coercing others who are lower down on the community totem pole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
