Gerard outlines "How to raise the tone of the wiki", Satire - nay irony itself - is dead Options

[Kato]

David Gerard outlines his proposal to "raise the tone of the wiki". The proposal includes:

That is:

• noting that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is in fact hard policy
• indicating willingness to enforce it
• an expectation that people shape the hell up

As if these ironic blockbusters were not enough, Gerard adds:

The arbitration committee has fluffed several opportunities to make examples of particularly bad offenders, and many are at a loss for how to stop people from being driven away from the project.

Gerard, voted this year's Dick of Distinction for his unstoppable obnoxiousness, has broken the new record of lack-of-self-aware irony, previously held by Jossi.

I mean, lets take a look at some of Gerard's handywork. This one was so bad it made The Register magazine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=157139762

[gomi]

But if Wavy Davy Gerard were to grace us with his presence, he would no doubt say:

A personal attack in the defense of Wikipedia is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of enemies of the Wiki is no virtue!

Why, I have here in my hand a list of 327 card-carrying members of Wikipedia Review. This menace has invaded the inner sanctum of the Wiki we hold dear. We must root out these communists trolls and vandals and .......

[Bottled_Spider]

I'm almost convinced Gerard is taking the piss with all this. So far he's included these descriptive little pieces re. his fellow Wikipedo's :

"blithering stupidity", "socially inept", and "a sufficient number of Wikipedian (sic) act enough like arseholes".

And this 'Carcharoth' person. Has he no self-respect? Imagine mixing with Dave. Wank.

But if Wavy Davy Gerard were to grace us with his presence, he would no doubt say:

"Fuck. I clicked on the wrong link. Help!"

[Lar]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing.

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others. Hence maybe instead of starting by listing names, starting by saying there's a problem is the way to go.

And if only perfectly civil folk can point out that the level of discourse has deteriorated, then nothing will ever happen, as there ain't none such.

Finally, if ArbCom plans to actually take some action about it, and take action by starting with admins, I'm all for it.

[Kelly Martin]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing.

Or you could laugh because you know that there's a problem that needs fixing, and that David Gerard is a big part of the problem. Somehow, I doubt he'll be one of the first lined up before the wall.

[dtobias]

But in your comments there, you endorsed Tom Harrison, whose essay seems to me to be rather sexist (presuming women to be helpless damsels in distress who should stay away from anywhere where things might get nasty, and men to be the sort of louts who make things nasty), and validating the drama-queen-ism against "harassment" as practiced a couple of years ago by SlimVirgin & co., as well as the BADSITES idiocy ("And God forbid we should tell people not to link sites that attack our volunteers.").

[Lar]

But in your comments there, you endorsed Tom Harrison, whose essay seems to me to be rather sexist (presuming women to be helpless damsels in distress who should stay away from anywhere where things might get nasty, and men to be the sort of louts who make things nasty), and validating the drama-queen-ism against "harassment" as practiced a couple of years ago by SlimVirgin & co., as well as the BADSITES idiocy ("And God forbid we should tell people not to link sites that attack our volunteers.").

I endorsed:

"David's statement of the problem is quite correct, and has been a concern of mine for some time. No-personal-attacks and civility are policy not because they're nice, but because they are essential for maintaining the community necessary to write a neutral and complete encyclopedia. It may be trying too late something that might have worked two years ago, but I support his proposal."

I make no comment on his essay. Just that it's been "a concern of mine" too. Maybe I need to clarify that because I don't necessarily either intend to endorse or disendorse his essay. I have had significant differences with Tom harrison over the years... doesn't mean I don't agree with that particular phrasing.

[Bottled_Spider]

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but ....

I make no comment on his essay.
I don't necessarily either intend to endorse or disendorse his essay.
I have had significant differences with Tom harrison over the years... doesn't mean I don't agree with that particular phrasing.

Jeeeeeeeesus! You're the interwebs forum equivalent of fish & chips without salt, vinegar & brown sauce.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others. Hence maybe instead of starting by listing names, starting by saying there's a problem is the way to go.

Though its entirely thinkable there's a list of names already, and this little essay is nothing more than positioning to use "civility" as a lever to push out some inconvenient voices.

[Lar]

Jeeeeeeeesus! You're the interwebs forum equivalent of fish & chips without salt, vinegar & brown sauce.

"His blandness goes to 11!"

Though its entirely thinkable there's a list of names already, and this little essay is nothing more than positioning to use "civility" as a lever to push out some inconvenient voices.

There better not be, or I've been played for a sap again.

(stop the presses, sun rises in the east, film at 11)

[Kelly Martin]

Though its entirely thinkable there's a list of names already, and this little essay is nothing more than positioning to use "civility" as a lever to push out some inconvenient voices.

DING DING DING DING DING DING
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

There better not be, or I've been played for a sap again.

Imagine that.

[Cla68]

David Gerard outlines his proposal to "raise the tone of the wiki". The proposal includes:

That is:

• noting that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is in fact hard policy
• indicating willingness to enforce it
• an expectation that people shape the hell up

I think David Gerard is right, and if he means it I think he should be willing and able for his own behavior to be held up as an example of how not to behave around the project.

[GlassBeadGame]

David Gerard outlines his proposal to "raise the tone of the wiki". The proposal includes:

That is:

• noting that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is in fact hard policy
• indicating willingness to enforce it
• an expectation that people shape the hell up

I think David Gerard is right, and if he means it I think he should be willing and able for his own behavior to be held up as an example of how not to behave around the project.

Yes, civility is only for inside the hive. Outside Wikipedians are encouraged to dance on other people's skulls.

[gomi]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing. David Gerard and I have had our differences ... but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others.

I will choose the "laughter" option, because -- in at least this case -- in addition to your blandness you are joining Gerard in being monumentally full of BS.

If of all the problems that plague Wikipedia, you believe that "personal attacks" are chief among them, then you live in the same la-la land as Wavy Davy. Wikipedia utterly scholarly and intellectually bankrupt? That's a problem! A sack of misinformation, lies, and defamation about individuals? That's a problem! A culture of ban-happy, circle-the-wagons administrators, with no checks, no balances, no term limits, and no accountability? That's a problem. Partisan editors pushing political and social agendas while protected by an admin bit? That's a problem. But people being rude to you online? Not. Get a grip.

You want to deal with rudeness from the entrenched boob-ocracy? Dispossess them. Make it real mop-and-bucket work, and make it temporary. There is no number of Gianos you can "make an example of" that will improve Wikipedia half as much as doing so to a Jayjg or two.

[Kato]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing.

I'll laugh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[EricBarbour]

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others.

As soon as Gerard admits, IN PUBLIC, that HE was the source of many
of these PR disasters, I'll give him more credit.

Until then, as he himself said:

:I've made it a hard block again, because Judd Bagley or a minion was right back again using it. Also, I can see lots of usernames through the IP, but most or all are Bagley/overstock.com. (ps: Fuck off, Bagley.) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What is with you, Larry? Do you come here to invite us to mock you?
Surely you know by now that statements like the above will open you to belittlement?

[Bottled_Spider]

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others.

What is with you, Larry? Do you come here to invite us to mock you?
Surely you know by now that statements like the above will open you to belittlement?

Right! And make people say "That Lars is a mentalist!!!"

[Lar]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing. David Gerard and I have had our differences ... but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others.

I will choose the "laughter" option, because -- in at least this case -- in addition to your blandness you are joining Gerard in being monumentally full of BS.

If of all the problems that plague Wikipedia, you believe that "personal attacks" are chief among them, then you live in the same la-la land as Wavy Davy. Wikipedia utterly scholarly and intellectually bankrupt? That's a problem! A sack of misinformation, lies, and defamation about individuals? That's a problem! A culture of ban-happy, circle-the-wagons administrators, with no checks, no balances, no term limits, and no accountability? That's a problem. Partisan editors pushing political and social agendas while protected by an admin bit? That's a problem. But people being rude to you online? Not. Get a grip.

You want to deal with rudeness from the entrenched boob-ocracy? Dispossess them. Make it real mop-and-bucket work, and make it temporary. There is no number of Gianos you can "make an example of" that will improve Wikipedia half as much as doing so to a Jayjg or two.

Most of this isn't just directed at Gomi...

It's **a** problem. It's not the biggest. Not by far (and problems are part of systems, you don't fix any one problem in isolation)... I put BLP way above it.

But there seems to be a lot of complaining here about people being massively toxic over there... isn't that a good fraction of, say, the JzG subforum is about? Isn't it a good fraction of the criticism of quite a few admins and functionaries? Toxic is not good. Anywhere. It drives people away, people who maybe came to WP to see why their BLP is messed up and have no idea they are sticking their hand in a buzzsaw. So ya, it needs fixing. And admins are the place to start. They're supposed to set an example. Better them than random content writers. They want the buttons they can damn well hold up some standards.

So someone over there is saying maybe let's fix it. ... and some other voices are saying yes, you're right, it is a problem. You think they're wrong, there's no problem? You think the people saying "what problem" are right? You're confused. Be glad someone spoke up. Maybe something will happen. Maybe it will fizzle out like so much else. But if you want a perfect person to fix it, you need a plastic jesus to come to life for you and tackle it. Ain't gonna happen.

Maybe that makes me a sap. Oh well. I'm a sap. You don't like it? Kiss my ass.

Maybe that makes me a target for mockery. That's really big of you wankers... if that's the best you got, you need to get different hobbies. Because a lot of you can just go fuck yourselves, you're getting realllllly tiresome. All complaining and no action.

How's that for some incivility? Good thing this ain't WP, innit?

Right! And make people say "That Lars is a mentalist!!!"

Singular, numbskull. It's Lar, short for Larry. Not Lars. Misstating people's names means you're either stupid or you can't come up with a better insult.

Yes, civility is only for inside the hive. Outside Wikipedians are encouraged to dance on other people's skulls.

That was a stupid ass thing to say and he should never have said it, and should go apologise for saying it.

[gomi]

Maybe that makes me a target for mockery. That's really big of you wankers... you need to get different hobbies.

No, if I wanted to mock you, I would have said something about staring at tiny plastic blocks for too long, and the addling effect that would seem to have had. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

In truth, as seemingly the only important Wikipedian who is not a closeted spy, a zoophile, a polygamist, a NAMBLA and/or Orange Order member, or (*gasp*) an attorney, you normally are a paragon of reasonableness. Thus the surprise at your common cause with David Gerard.

[everyking]

I commend Gerard for making this proposal and I agree that the time has come to take a firm stand against incivility. The necessary first step, of course, is to ban David Gerard. Then we can stop, assess, and determine whether any further measures are necessary.