Zoe vs. NIU, Was: Jimbo approves of vandalism! Options

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Well someone thinks so.

It all seemed so simple. I mean, why not try to get a man in trouble with his employer?

Well then again maybe not.

[Somey]

Well, they're certainly not going to get much added respect within the academic community by behaving like that.

[Jonny Cache]

Once again we have a bunch of rabid anonym-phone-maniacs who not only have themselves confused with real people, but who are so hopelessly deluded as to think that the rest of the world will too.

You have earned the right to remain anonymous ... now please, please, please ... keep it that way !!!

Somey, if you like working on graphics, I think that we could use a variant of that DNFTT pic, but with a cute little elf being offerred on a plate to a mean old turkey -- you do the motto.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[gomi]

Reading the ANI discussion (non-perma-link) on this is a barrel of laughs. If anyone ever wanted evidence that the upper echelons of Wikipedia are populated by a bunch of bone-headed, argumentative, self-important morons, this is it. These people are wetting themselves over the bizarre belief that they are editing an encyclopedia, rather than participating in a social club wrapped around a set of random misinformation.

The admin in question has deleted her emails to the professor, but amusing quotes include: "Lets just range-block the school for a week if it happens again" (User:J.smith), "he's suggesting ... the online equivalent of his asking his [students] to pick a random store, throw a brick through the front window and see how long it takes the cops to arrive" (User:HalfShadow), and ... this academic's conduct sickens me. The wanton destruction of knowledge - free knowledge, yet - violates just about every single academic principle I can think of by the ever-idiotic User:Moreschi. The understatement award, in response to the question "what are we trying to do here? get a guy sacked? " goes to this: If he refuses to respond to emails. This is a bit harsh, but ignoring Zoe's emails is no good either."

But the best of all has to be by the instigator, User:Zoe -- destruction of a privately-owned website is a federal offense Sorry, I have to go now and change my pants because I wet myself laughing when reading that. After that I'm going to go vandalize Wikipedia a little, maybe.

[everyking]

Normally I agree with Zoe about nothing, but I liked the hard line on this issue. It would be good for people to get the message that this kind of thing is taken seriously by Wikipedia, and that abusing one's position in this manner can have real-world ramifications. I think it is unfortunate that we're sending the message that this kind of thing will be handled with only muted protest and no meaningful action. At this point, the professor may well indulge in this business with future classes, and even more importantly, others may take a liking to this method of undermining or discrediting Wikipedia and do something similar, in the absence of consequences.

[Somey]

If Wikipedians can do nasty anonymous writeups on professors or entire colleges and universities without consequences, why shouldn't professors at those institutions be allowed to direct their students to vandalize WP pages without consequences?

Nobody is saying Wikipedians shouldn't be allowed to gripe about that sort of thing on Wikipedia, but nobody gets to call User:Zoe's employer either, when s/he does something abusive towards an outside organization, do they...?

Maybe people like Zoe who do that sort of thing should be required to fully identify themselves on Wikipedia beforehand, so that people will at least know who's accusing them of malfeasance.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Normally I agree with Zoe about nothing, but I liked the hard line on this issue. It would be good for people to get the message that this kind of thing is taken seriously by Wikipedia, and that abusing one's position in this manner can have real-world ramifications. I think it is unfortunate that we're sending the message that this kind of thing will be handled with only muted protest and no meaningful action. At this point, the professor may well indulge in this business with future classes, and even more importantly, others may take a liking to this method of undermining or discrediting Wikipedia and do something similar, in the absence of consequences.

Other people pointed it out in the ANI thread though. Why this? Why now? Why the ferocity?

I don't like vandalism on Wikipedia, but at the same time...the response is grossly out of proportion for what happened. A reaction like this has never happened...at least to the best of my recollection in the past 2 years. I mean, I know emails go out to network admins everyonce in a while in order to tell people on their network to stop vandalizing. But to go up the chain of command? No.

I saw Zoe's deleted email subpage. She had emailed Pierce, his supervisor, the PR department, and finally the legal or ethics board. (The latter pretty much said "Have your lawyers contact us, or better yet consult one, since we're pretty sure nothing illegal has been done.")

There's hardline, and then there's harderline, EK. Vandalism hardline? Block the offenders. Harderline? Try to sabotoge a man's career, albeit failing miserably at it.

I've always disagreed with bringing conflicts on the internet into the real world. I've always viewed it as the unwritten contract between users on the internet.

This post has been edited by CrazyGameOfPoker:

[everyking]

Normally I agree with Zoe about nothing, but I liked the hard line on this issue. It would be good for people to get the message that this kind of thing is taken seriously by Wikipedia, and that abusing one's position in this manner can have real-world ramifications. I think it is unfortunate that we're sending the message that this kind of thing will be handled with only muted protest and no meaningful action. At this point, the professor may well indulge in this business with future classes, and even more importantly, others may take a liking to this method of undermining or discrediting Wikipedia and do something similar, in the absence of consequences.

Other people pointed it out in the ANI thread though. Why this? Why now? Why the ferocity?

I don't like vandalism on Wikipedia, but at the same time...the response is grossly out of proportion for what happened. A reaction like this has never happened...at least to the best of my recollection in the past 2 years. I mean, I know emails go out to network admins everyonce in a while in order to tell people on their network to stop vandalizing. But to go up the chain of command? No.

I saw Zoe's deleted email subpage. She had emailed Pierce, his supervisor, the PR department, and finally the legal or ethics board. (The latter pretty much said "Have your lawyers contact us, or better yet consult one, since we're pretty sure nothing illegal has been done.")

There's hardline, and then there's harderline, EK. Vandalism hardline? Block the offenders. Harderline? Try to sabotoge a man's career, albeit failing miserably at it.

I've always disagreed with bringing conflicts on the internet into the real world. I've always viewed it as the unwritten contract between users on the internet.

I agree that keeping things separate is generally best, but I feel when someone in a position of authority directs those under his authority to commit vandalism (possibly even requires that they vandalize?), that crosses a certain line at which point they should be facing some sort of real-world consequences. Individual vandalism isn't a serious matter (and is normally not done seriously, anyway), and those people should face nothing worse than being blocked from editing; however, vandalizing in one's capacity as an educator is a much more serious thing, and instructing one's students to wage their own campaign of vandalism is, in my opinion, completely beyond the pale. Personally, I think when an educator does something like that, there is, beyond just the practical impact to Wikipedia itself, an ethical obligation to report it to somebody higher up.

[Jonny Cache]

Reading the ANI discussion (non-perma-link) on this is a barrel of laughs. If anyone ever wanted evidence that the upper echelons of Wikipedia are populated by a bunch of bone-headed, argumentative, self-important morons, this is it. These people are wetting themselves over the bizarre belief that they are editing an encyclopedia, rather than participating in a social club wrapped around a set of random misinformation.

The admin in question has deleted her emails to the professor, but amusing quotes include: "Lets just range-block the school for a week if it happens again" (User:J.smith), "he's suggesting ... the online equivalent of his asking his [students] to pick a random store, throw a brick through the front window and see how long it takes the cops to arrive" (User:HalfShadow), and ... this academic's conduct sickens me. The wanton destruction of knowledge -- free knowledge, yet -- violates just about every single academic principle I can think of by the ever-idiotic User:Moreschi. The understatement award, in response to the question "what are we trying to do here? get a guy sacked?" goes to this: If he refuses to respond to emails. This is a bit harsh, but ignoring Zoe's emails is no good either".

But the best of all has to be by the instigator, User:Zoe -- destruction of a privately-owned website is a federal offense Sorry, I have to go now and change my pants because I wet myself laughing when reading that. After that I'm going to go vandalize Wikipedia a little, maybe.

Yes, I predict that this page will become the locus loco classic-ass for future generations of courses in The Rise And Fall Of Information Illiteracy (TRAFOII 101).

The only ½way sane comments come from Cap'n Ahab himself. Like the wise wikipusher who knows better than to smoke (too much of) his own dope, he knows that Wikipedia is just an Oversized Blog that e-scaped from its Usenet Litter Box over an unguarded LAN Bridge. Indeed, his entire claim to immunity from prosecution depends on the Real World continuing to treat Wikipedia as a Blog Of No Consequence (BONC).

The trouble with the dopes who do smoke his dope is that they want the legal immunity of a private phone converstaion, all the while demanding the legal protections of the British Museum or the Library of Congress.

What a joke !!!

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Lir]

This is a bit harsh, but ignoring Zoe's emails is no good either. 128.118.60.168 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, because ignoring Zoe is a federal offense?

Zoe is really pathetic; she describes herself as a professional editor, and then edits Wikipedia -- is she having trouble finding a job? I remember when I first started editing Wikipedia, I noted that Christopher Columbus had previously worked as a slave-trader, and then he took Amerindians as slaves when he reached 'the Americas' -- there was subsequently a huge edit war over this issue, with Zoe, because she insisted that my information was vandalism. Within a month I was banned.

I saw Zoe's deleted email subpage. She had emailed Pierce, his supervisor, the PR department, and finally the legal or ethics board.

Yah, they went after my university in the same way; I got photocopies of all the emailing, and it was pretty ridiculous -- the annoying thing was that the allegations weren't even true, and it was sort of ridiculous to explain to a dean that people go to Wikipedia to vandalize their article about the clitoris, and then Raul attributes that to me as if it were a concrete fact. Eventually, I told the dean and the tech person that Wikipedia is sort of like the Scientology cult; they agreed, laughed, and nothing further happened.

Remember that time someone called the cops on Snowspinner for his online diary about murdering homeless people? Lol, that was funny; not me though.

[Jonny Cache]

Maybe I've been living in the Real World way too long, but contacting the legal office of the university constitutes a legal threat, not only against the instructor but against the students, at least some of whom must be editors on Wikipedia, not to mention the act or threat of outing their real identities.

If there were even a hint of validity to Wikipedia polices, Zoe would be banned immediately. We've all seen it happen to non-cabal members for far less than that.

On jugera ...

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Lir]

contacting the legal office of the university constitutes a legal threat

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) Zoe should be banned according to the strict letter of wiki-law!

[JohnA]

I don't know what is more disturbing: Zoe's attacks on the professor, or the lickspittles and nodding dogs who followed Jimbo Wales' lead.

Some people clearly can't think for themselves.

Oh and the notion of "the integrity of Wikipedia" nearly cost me another keyboard.

[Truth Man]

The admin in question has deleted her emails to the professor,

Big, I know, but here it is

The following is the text of all communication I have had with Tim Pierce of Northern Illinois University and other offices at the University:

==January 20==
'''Z''':Have you really issued a class assignment to have your students vandalize Wikipedia? - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=101680387

Zoe Comnena, Wikipedia system administrator

'''P''':Zoe,

They needed to learn a lesson about how easy it is to find
information and how open source information is not the best way to go. This was after I was getting a lot of Wikipedia cites last semester where students were citing really dubious information from there. One way for them to realize that using sources, such as Wikipedia, is to get them to see how simple it is to change the information that is there.

==January 21==
'''Z''':I think I will forward this information to the president of the university. He or she should know that the faculty of your university advocate public vandalism.

'''P''':It's not that I'm advocating vandalism as I had them print the original page so that, even if it wasn't caught, I could go back and recreate the correct page. The bigger issue, though, is that anybody can do this and have information that is online on your servers until who knows when until the page is discovered and corrected.

'''Z''':And you didn't think that you could have made the point more easily by just making a valid edit to an article and explaining to them that anybody could have made the same edit and put invalid information in? We now, all of a sudden, have a large amount of vandalism from NIU IP addresses, which we as sysops have to deal with, since you apparently have not done so.

'''P''':I do understand that problem and in the past I would say, "please don't use Wikipedia. As much as I like personally like Wikipedia, it is not an academic source and I wouldn't use it as an academic site." Guess what happens? I end up with people using Wikipeida over and over again and I realize that a lot of this comes from high school teachers who really didn't think through the advice that they were giving their students. So, I figured (perhaps a bit too hastily) that giving them something controlled, which I know from looking at the IP logs for myself, there is a backup page available that can be popped in that if they made an obvious change, just in the off chance that it wasn't corrected, they could see for themselves how long it would take before someone would fix it. The point that I want them to walk away with is that you can use Wikipedia if you need to verify something that you think you know to be true but I'd be really cautious of laying my credibility on the line here. The second part of the discussion that I was planning on having with them, regardless, is the ethicality of what they did. In other words, is it really okay to change things or to put information out there that is false knowing that other people may be relying on your information. Unfortunately, most students learn these lessons by doing and my guess is that they have learned a lot about the power of information and, in some cases, the power of disinformation.

The reality is that this is the downside of the wiki environment that even Wikipedia's president has admitted last year is really a problem. There has to be some middle ground, right? I think that Wikipedia can do a lot of good if the model was thought through a lot better than it did. And I think that there has been some good that has come out of it. I know, from reading, that there are a lot of people who go out and delibertly deface Wikipedia pages and because of the randomness of the IP addresses, it's much harder for you or other Sysops to catch and try to keep on top of it. However, if people rethink through the model of how open the open source really ought to be, perhaps Wikipedia won't cause people to shiver when it's being cited in college classrooms. In that sense, it's not just me. Quite a few of my colleagues had a Wikipedia venting session at the beginning of the school year.

So, in the sense that I've caused a lot of work on people's part in what's going on, I'm sorry for that. That really wasn't my intent.

'''Z''':So if you feel that there is something wrong in a newspaper article or in an Encyclopaedia Brittanica article, do you advocate destroying the page it's on and stealing all of the newspapers out of the vendor's box?

'''P''':Obviously no and the analogy is different. Of course, newspapers can be wrong in that something can be misstated but there's an editor that is going to go through and stand behind and issue corrections if need be. A print encyclopedia is very different in that Britannica is going to find an "expert" to write the encyclopedia entry. Can that entry have a bias? Sure. Would I put a lot of stock in that type of source. Not really--I would expect people to dig deeper than that.

==Correspondence with the Office of Public Affairs==
I forwarded the first conversation I had had with Mr. Pierce to the office of public affairs, with an explanation at the head of it. I also indicated that I had had further communications from Mr. Pierce, which I could forward to them if they were interested. After having been ignored twice, I sent this for the third time, which got a reply:

This is the third time I have attempted to communicate
with you or someone in your office. If you do not
reply by close of business Friday, January 25, I will
be forced to go to the press.

It recently came to our attention that one of NIU's
professors, Tim Pierce, made an assignment to the
students in one of his classes to vandalize Wikipedia,
the online Encyclopedia. I have been in contact with
Professor Pierce and can forward our correspondence to
you if you wish. He admits to having made the
assignment, and believes that his actions were
correct.

I don't think we need to discuss the illegalities of
defacing a website. Such actions are a federal
offense. But we do need to discuss the ethics of such
an assignment, and the failure of Professor Pierce to
regret his actions or to pledge not to do so in the
future.

I would like an official comment from the University
on this subject. I have already sent one email to
Public Affairs on the subject, and it has been
ignored. Please respond to me, or I may find it
necessary to take this information to the press, which
is always eager to write articles about Wikipedia
defacement.

Zoe Comnena, Wikipedia administrator

I finally got a reply, as follows:

Zoe, I am in receipt of your emails on this topic. Given their
content, it seems more appropriate for you to address your concerns to the Office of University Legal Services. Within that office, it is most likely that the issues you raise would be addressed by the university's Ethics Officer. You may wish to forward your complaints to that office at the following email address: xxxxxx@niu.edu (email address redacted by Zoe)

==Correspondence with the Ethics Office==
I then sent the same email to the Ethics Office at the email address advised, and am waiting for a reply.

And this is their response:

Here is the position of my office on this: You are probably aware that university teachers have considerable latitude under academic freedom flowing from the First Amendment to express their ideas and impart information to their students in the course of conducting academic courses. NIU would not censor its faculty in the pursuit of their legitimate teaching objectives if conducted in accordance with applicable laws.

You may ask your legal counsel to contact me if you feel your organization has experienced some form of illegal actions by NIU faculty, and I will be happy to make further inquiry and reply to your counsel. If your counsel can cite what laws have allegedly been violated, NIU will look into determining what is actually true. I have reason to understand there is a substantial difference of opinion on the facts you have represented in your message. Your counsel would probably inform you of a need to be cautious about accusing individuals and public academic institutions of illegal actions before there is clear proof that such is the case.

In the meantime, your organization should consider making its website content more secure by assuring it cannot be changed by outsiders if indeed that is a possibility and an interest you want to protect against, as you seem to say our faculty has possibly pointed out to students. It at least preliminarily seems disingenuous to claim 'vandalism' if it is so easily and foreseeably done. I am not hearing you say this site was 'hacked' into. It would be interesting to know how often this occurs.

Your veiled threat of 'going to the media' does not alter how this matter should be addressed on its merits. A one-time teaching demonstration certainly has evoked a strong response from you, and I am interested in knowing why -- given all the circumstances that would likely come out in a public discussion of it. Maybe it would be best to just let it drop.

[[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[Somey]

If you do not reply by close of business Friday, January 25, I will be forced to go to the press.

She'll be extremely lucky if this doesn't make it into the press.

I don't think we need to discuss the illegalities of defacing a website. Such actions are a federal
offense.

Again, wishful thinking out the proverbial ying-yang. For the umpteenth-millionth time, no such laws exist - there are laws meant to protect known individuals from anonymous harassment (though they're often of little use), and to prevent circumvention of blocking software meant to prevent children from viewing porn and so forth, but that's about it - and if anything, Wikipedia is the site that's violating those laws, not NIU.

This could turn into a serious problem for them - Zoe is obviously a zealot, the sort for whom WP is the reason for waking up in the morning. Any talk of her being desysopped or blocked will totally freak her out - and possibly have "IRL" psychological consequences that could end up being hugely embarrassing to them. But I don't know how they're going to prevent those consequences, unless they can at least get into a phone conversation with her.

Isn't she an arbitrator, though? They probably have her phone number somewhere, if that's the case...

[Elara]

Well, sorry, but Jimbo's wrong on this one, and if people's only answer is to stick knives in Zoe for trying to do what she thought was right, then I'm done with WP.

[Somey]

Well, sorry, but Jimbo's wrong on this one, and if people's only answer is to stick knives in Zoe for trying to do what she thought was right, then I'm done with WP.

I'm not sure there's any right or wrong involved, though. WP is starting to become famous for this sort of thing - its popularity has made it a huge target, and the fact is, operating a website that's as popular as that, but still allows vandalism to take place at all, is going to involve making some ideological compromises. It isn't just "directed vandalism" (or whatever we're calling this), it's paid editing, BLP opt-outs, protection of minors against adult content, all sorts of things. The more popular WP gets, the more often those compromises will have to take place, and the more drama that's generated as a result of people not wanting to make them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I'm not saying Zoe deserves to be pilloried for this, but neither did/does the NIU professor. And if Zoe's unwilling to make those kinds of compromises, or at least try to be gracious about it, she will become a liability to them regardless of how well-intentioned she is.

[Lir]

Wikipedia, the online Encyclopedia.

Lol, because there is only one! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

In the meantime, your organization should consider making its website content more secure by assuring it cannot be changed by outsiders if indeed that is a possibility and an interest you want to protect against, as you seem to say our faculty has possibly pointed out to students. It at least preliminarily seems disingenuous to claim 'vandalism' if it is so easily and foreseeably done. I am not hearing you say this site was 'hacked' into. It would be interesting to know how often this occurs.

Your veiled threat of 'going to the media' does not alter how this matter should be addressed on its merits. A one-time teaching demonstration certainly has evoked a strong response from you, and I am interested in knowing why -- given all the circumstances that would likely come out in a public discussion of it. Maybe it would be best to just let it drop.

Lol, I don't think the person that wrote that is a fan of Wikipedia.

[Elara]

You know, if I wanted to show that Wikipedia is unreliable, I could find THOUSANDS of ways to do it besides give out an assignment to conduct ongoing vandalism to a class of students.

The reply from the NIU Ethics Officer is just a pile of shit.

[Somey]

You know, if I wanted to show that Wikipedia is unreliable, I could find THOUSANDS of ways to do it besides give out an assignment to conduct ongoing vandalism to a class of students.

Okay, let's hear 'em! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Remember, though, the point is to ensure that the lesson is learned by said students, and it's presumed that simple demonstrations have already proven ineffective.

The reply from the NIU Ethics Officer is just a pile of shit.

Maybe so, but he's right in implying that the anti-hacker laws wouldn't apply in this case. They'd have to prove intentional harassment, and I doubt they'd have much luck at it...

Meanwhile, the NIU people can blow all the smoke they want, and nobody will care all that much - whereas when a WP admin does it, there's a risk that it will actually make the papers.

[Jonny Cache]

You know, if I wanted to show that Wikipedia is unreliable, I could find THOUSANDS of ways to do it besides give out an assignment to conduct ongoing vandalism to a class of students.

The reply from the NIU Ethics Officer is just a pile of shit.

Wikipedia is a Blog. The word vandalism, as used internal to this Blog, has no determinate meaning to outsiders. As far as external observers can tell, Wikipedia users are constantly vandalizing the subject matters to which many of them have dedicated their lives and sacred honors. By and large, Wikipedia website "administrators" are engaged in a form of anti-education that is warping the minds of naive people about the very nature of knowledge, and there is no reason that real educators should have to respect what goes on there.

The word encyclopedia, as used internal to the Wikipedia Blog, vandalizes the very meaning of the word. Wikipedia has not earned the right to appropriate this word because Wikipedia adamantly refuses to do the things that it would take to earn anybody else's respect.

People of good will and intelligence granted the Wikipedia experiment the initial benefit of the doubt. In time they began to warn the Wikipedia populace about the collapse of credibility that it was headed for. But all that people of good will and intelligence got for their troubles was a constant stream of spit in their faces.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[gomi]

Well, sorry, but Jimbo's wrong on this one, and if people's only answer is to stick knives in Zoe for trying to do what she thought was right, then I'm done with WP.

I'm not saying Zoe deserves to be pilloried for this, but neither did/does the NIU professor. And if Zoe's unwilling to make those kinds of compromises, or at least try to be gracious about it, she will become a liability to them regardless of how well-intentioned she is.

OK, since Somey won't say it, I will: Zoe deserves to be pilloried for this, she is a (small) liability to the larger pile of liability that is Wikipedia, and if the likes of Elara can't understand how over-the-top this debate has gotten, then she should leave it, because she has lost her grip on objective reality.

The reality is this: suggesting that someone vandalizing (or suggests vandalism of) Wikipedia -- a site vandalized by dozens (if not hundreds) of anonymous editors every minute or two, a site where there is often no agreement on what is truth and what is vandalism, a site whose operators regularly run off most contributors with expertise and actual scholarly credentials, and a site whose pseudo-juducial and ethical procedures resemeble the Inquisition more than modern systems -- i.e. suggestis rearranging the turds in the dung-heap to see how long it takes the beetles to move them back -- someone who suggests this is anything more than the usual order of business, indeed that it is a federal crime, well, such people have lost the plot, missed the boat, and are a few nuggets short of a Happy Meal.

I suggest that, indeed a good "pillorying" may serve to focus the attention on what is important: either fixing the broken social system ensuring the inaccuracy of information on Wikipedia; or fixing the self-replicating publicity machine that perpetuates the illusion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Ahem. I feel better now. Perhaps I will search under the sofa cushions for spare change to buy some punctuation to insert into the rant above.

[Somey]

I suggest that, indeed a good "pillorying" may serve to focus the attention on what is important: either fixing the broken social system ensuring the inaccuracy of information on Wikipedia; or fixing the self-replicating publicity machine that perpetuates the illusion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

All your points are valid, of course... But is there no risk of the opposite effect, namely people thinking they've fixed the problem simply by punishing User:Zoe specifically somehow?

Zoe certainly isn't the only one with these strange and mystifying beliefs regarding Wikipedia's relationship with the law and the outside world in general. It may be that the root of this particular problem is the common set of misconceptions they're laboring under, even though it may be unrealistic to think they're ever going to reform themselves in that respect...

I guess what I'm saying is that Zoe should be blamed more for overreacting, and then not backing off when it became clear that there was no "consensus" for what she was doing, rather than for believing in a false ideology shared by who knows how many other WP'ers - maybe thousands.

[gomi]

I suggest that, indeed a good "pillorying" may serve to focus the attention ...

All your points are valid, of course... But is there no risk of the opposite effect, namely people thinking they've fixed the problem simply by punishing User:Zoe ... ?

Zoe certainly isn't the only one with these strange and mystifying beliefs regarding Wikipedia's relationship with the law and the outside world in general. ... it may be unrealistic to think they're ever going to reform themselves in that respect...

You are, of course, completely right. Allowing WP a scapegoat lets it, as an entity, off too easily. However, what seems to happen most of the time is that no one is blamed at all. The AN/I discussion of this has been capped off, and is now in the process of being swept under the rug.

Probably the only thing that will cause change is the ever-increasing frequency of these and similar events. When Wikipedia moves from the occasional crisis to a never-ending firefight, then things will change, though not neccesarily for the better.

[Lir]

I guess what I'm saying is that Zoe should be blamed more for overreacting, and then not backing off when it became clear that there was no "consensus" for what she was doing

Its sick how much theoretical emphasis they put on the idea of "consensus", when in practice they have no desire to seek consensus.

[Jonny Cache]

I guess what I'm saying is that Zoe should be blamed more for overreacting, and then not backing off when it became clear that there was no "consensus" for what she was doing

It's sick how much theoretical emphasis they put on the idea of "consensus", when in practice they have no desire to seek consensus.

The word consensus is just one of many that Wikipedian True Believers have apparently never bothered to look up in a real dictionary, and it no longer has any determinate meaning in Wikipedian practice. This is all apart from the fact that all three of the main content policies say, or used to say, that consensus cannot trump the application of these overarching principles. In practice, editors ignore these principles at will in favor of a spot "consensus", very often consisting of a special interest, single issue, brown sock group.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[a view from the hive]

Argh, all this does is just create more of a ruckus and make waste some diskspace w/ the rollback button. Too bad it wasn't something obvious like "the number of elephants has tripled in the last 6 months" - the last incident of "encouraged vandalism" and admins were able to protect the pages in time.

[LamontStormstar]

Can someone find the diff where Jimbo encourages vandalizism. I searched all the links given and I looked at Jimbo's contribs and couldn't find it.

[taiwopanfob]

Well, sorry, but Jimbo's wrong on this one, and if people's only answer is to stick knives in Zoe for trying to do what she thought was right, then I'm done with WP.

Why? Wales et al (hereafter, "the cabal") are using the usual techniques to transfer your allegiance from the content to _them_. There is a difference between country and government. If instead you just realize that the cabal are, by and large, a bunch of morons playing parts in a long, complicated, tedious soap opera (no soap yet, but maybe soon!) it becomes very simple to just switch your priorities back to the content and simply point and laugh at the Glorious Ruler and His Army of Sycophants (GRAHOS). This is essentially why wikipediareview exists, so your presence here should make the transition even easier.

[Jonny Cache]

Well, sorry, but Jimbo's wrong on this one, and if people's only answer is to stick knives in Zoe for trying to do what she thought was right, then I'm done with WP.

Why? Wales et al (hereafter, "the cabal") are using the usual techniques to transfer your allegiance from the content to them. There is a difference between country and government. If instead you just realize that the cabal are, by and large, a bunch of morons playing parts in a long, complicated, tedious soap opera (no soap yet, but maybe soon!) it becomes very simple to just switch your priorities back to the content and simply point and laugh at the Glorious Ruler and His Army of Sycophants (GRAHAOS). This is essentially why wikipediareview exists, so your presence here should make the transition even easier.

SOAP = Sum Of Asinine Pretension

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Robert Roberts]

Zoe seems to be gone - I've just looked at her page and people are asking her to come back.

[Somey]

Zoe seems to be gone - I've just looked at her page and people are asking her to come back.

Don't worry, she'll be back... sometimes we set up a little "pool" on how long it takes them to come back. In this case I'm pretty sure it'll be within 48 hours.

Also, welcome to the forum, Mr. Roberts!

[Robert Roberts]

Hi - just in case anyone is wondering - I have a current ID so I'd perfer not to identify myself via it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif) .

In regards to Zoe - yeah I was wondering if it was one of those "show me how you love me" things.

[Robert Roberts]

This MONGO chap is a nice guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104121576

"worthless articles" - yeah because all of those anons know all of the rules around wikipedia and set out to do something worthless... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[gomi]

Can someone find the diff where Jimbo encourages vandalizism. I searched all the links given and I looked at Jimbo's contribs and couldn't find it.

Jimbo's statement is here, as later augmented with this. The "leave it alone" was angrily denounced by Zoe as tantamount to allowing vandalism here, and also with this testy remark on Jimbo's talk page, and by making this user page change.

I didn't write the thread title, and I'm not a big fan of Jimbo, but in cases like these, with a significant potential for blowback against Wikipedia's interests, Jimbo fairly uniformly chooses expedience over the more Puritan ("thou hast transgressed and must be punished!") leanings of his minions.

[Somey]

We should probably change the title to something like "Zoe isn't happy," or if we'd all prefer something more conservative, "Zoe vs. the Professor"...

I thought about "Zoe vs. the Volcano" or "G.I. Zoe," but I was worried people would think I was just trying to be clever.

[Jonny Cache]

We should probably change the title to something like "Zoe isn't happy," or if we'd all prefer something more conservative, "Zoe vs. the Professor"...

I thought about "Zoe vs. the Volcano" or "G.I. Zoe," but I was worried people would think I was just trying to be clever.

Howzabout The Knights That Say "NIU" ?

Or maybe Flamey and Zoe ?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[JohnA]

You know, if I wanted to show that Wikipedia is unreliable, I could find THOUSANDS of ways to do it besides give out an assignment to conduct ongoing vandalism to a class of students.

The reply from the NIU Ethics Officer is just a pile of shit.

Wikipedia is a Blog. The word vandalism, as used internal to this Blog, has no determinate meaning to outsiders. As far as external observers can tell, Wikipedia users are constantly vandalizing the subject matters to which many of them have dedicated their lives and sacred honors. By and large, Wikipedia website "administrators" are engaged in a form of anti-education that is warping the minds of naive people about the very nature of knowledge, and there is no reason that real educators should have to respect what goes on there.

The word encyclopedia, as used internal to the Wikipedia Blog, vandalizes the very meaning of the word. Wikipedia has not earned the right to appropriate this word because Wikipedia adamantly refuses to do the things that it would take to earn anybody else's respect.

People of good will and intelligence granted the Wikipedia experiment the initial benefit of the doubt. In time they began to warn the Wikipedia populace about the collapse of credibility that it was headed for. But all that people of good will and intelligence got for their troubles was a constant stream of spit in their faces.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Bravo! Jonny has moments of lucidity that are worth waiting for. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[LamontStormstar]

Jimbo said:

'''Note from Jimbo:''' Wow, this is just wildly inappropriate. I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then. I think Zoe's pursuit of this in this way is wildly inappropriate and should cease immediately, and that she should apologize to him for it. I very much do not approve of this kind of random hostility from Wikipedia editors.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I talked to him, he apologized, he said he would not do it again. It was very simple. Many instructors have made the same error. Nothing to see, really.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How does this show support of vandalism? He just says he resolved the issue and the vandalism would stop.

It appears Zoe acted irrationally.

[gomi]

How does this show support of vandalism?

I didn't say it did. Zoe and the original poster said so. I think the totality of this thread makes the overall issue clear. Other than "It appears Zoe acted irrationally", (with which I agree) do you have a point?