Ottava leaves Wikipedia Options

[Coffee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=324205438

[everyking]

Although virtually everyone seems to agree now that something has to be done about Ottava, Ottava himself is now proposing that several of his enemies be desysopped, topic banned, blocked, and/or admonished.

[Milton Roe]

Although virtually everyone seems to agree now that something has to be done about Ottava, Ottava himself is now proposing that several of his enemies be desysopped, topic banned, blocked, and/or admonished.

No! How out-of-character. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Rarely does one encouter self-righteousness this pure. Though on Wikipedia it seems to be common. Idle question: do such people gravitate there, or does the WP environment actually bring out and nurture such tendencies, in otherwise not particularly disfunctionally inflexable people?

It 's a veritable Electronic Crucible. Where is our Arthur Miller to chonicle it, allegorically?

[dogbiscuit]

Rarely does one encouter self-righteousness this pure. Though on Wikipedia it seems to be common. Idle question: do such people gravitate there, or does the WP environment actually bring out and nurture such tendencies, in otherwise not particularly difunctionally inflexable people?

There is definitely something about the Wikipedian environment that catalyses this behaviour.

Reflecting on my own experiences, as someone who recognises a strong self-righteous streak in himself, the environment is one where after trotting along on your own merry way, someone lifts a rope across the path and then when you complain you are faced with the suggestion it was your fault for not seeing this deliberately laid trap. The natural reaction is outraged indignation at such obvious perfidy.

There are two or three ways to go: fight fire with fire; use your own righteous indignation to drive through a campaign of reform as you discover that such behaviour is not only condoned but endorsed by the powers that be; or slink away as you recognise that you have sunk into the murky world of fighting on points of principle.

The sanest fall into the latter category after passing through the middle phase. The less robust may be stuck in the middle phase, and the weakest are condemned to be trapped in the eternal torment of the first.

Most are weak.

[Cedric]

Rarely does one encouter self-righteousness this pure. Though on Wikipedia it seems to be common. Idle question: do such people gravitate there, or does the WP environment actually bring out and nurture such tendencies, in otherwise not particularly difunctionally inflexable people?

There is definitely something about the Wikipedian environment that catalyses this behaviour.

Reflecting on my own experiences, as someone who recognises a strong self-righteous streak in himself, the environment is one where after trotting along on your own merry way, someone lifts a rope across the path and then when you complain you are faced with the suggestion it was your fault for not seeing this deliberately laid trap. The natural reaction is outraged indignation at such obvious perfidy.

There are two or three ways to go: fight fire with fire; use your own righteous indignation to drive through a campaign of reform as you discover that such behaviour is not only condoned but endorsed by the powers that be; or slink away as you recognise that you have sunk into the murky world of fighting on points of principle.

The sanest fall into the latter category after passing through the middle phase. The less robust may be stuck in the middle phase, and the weakest are condemned to be trapped in the eternal torment of the first.

Most are weak.

I find this a very interesting analysis as well. By these lights, I would rank on the sane end of the scale, although that is definitely not how I perceived things at the time I left WP. What I remember was feeling rather angry; somewhat angry at myself for being fooled, but mostly angry at WP's leadership for their ethical obliviousness and irresponsibility. It wasn't until some weeks or months after I left WP that I truly realized what I had been involved in. I just didn't pay that much attention to wiki-politics while I was there, as I lacked any desire to be an admin.

Now that I think on it, I suppose I might have realized on a subconscious level that my sanity was at stake. If so, it was very fortuitous; that, and the fact that the Essjay scandal came along just as I was starting to spend a really significant amount of time on WP. As Moulton often says, WP is truly a crazy-making place.

I still suspect I was simply more lucky than sane, but this gives me something to ponder on. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[Angela Kennedy]

Rarely does one encouter self-righteousness this pure. Though on Wikipedia it seems to be common. Idle question: do such people gravitate there, or does the WP environment actually bring out and nurture such tendencies, in otherwise not particularly difunctionally inflexable people?

There is definitely something about the Wikipedian environment that catalyses this behaviour.

Reflecting on my own experiences, as someone who recognises a strong self-righteous streak in himself, the environment is one where after trotting along on your own merry way, someone lifts a rope across the path and then when you complain you are faced with the suggestion it was your fault for not seeing this deliberately laid trap. The natural reaction is outraged indignation at such obvious perfidy.

There are two or three ways to go: fight fire with fire; use your own righteous indignation to drive through a campaign of reform as you discover that such behaviour is not only condoned but endorsed by the powers that be; or slink away as you recognise that you have sunk into the murky world of fighting on points of principle.

The sanest fall into the latter category after passing through the middle phase. The less robust may be stuck in the middle phase, and the weakest are condemned to be trapped in the eternal torment of the first.

Most are weak.

I find this a very interesting analysis as well. By these lights, I would rank on the sane end of the scale, although that is definitely not how I perceived things at the time I left WP. What I remember was feeling rather angry; somewhat angry at myself for being fooled, but mostly angry at WP's leadership for their ethical obliviousness and irresponsibility. It wasn't until some weeks or months after I left WP that I truly realized what I had been involved in. I just didn't pay that much attention to wiki-politics while I was there, as I lacked any desire to be an admin.

Now that I think on it, I suppose I might have realized on a subconscious level that my sanity was at stake. If so, it was very fortuitous; that, and the fact that the Essjay scandal came along just as I was starting to spend a really significant amount of time on WP. As Moulton often says, WP is truly a crazy-making place.

I still suspect I was simply more lucky than sane, but this gives me something to ponder on. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

I don't know which end I was on really. I was treating Wikipedia as I would a newspaper or journal who was printing crap about a patient community for whom I advocate, which I needed to challenge. It wouldn't be the first or last time I've done that. I've challenged newspapers, medical journals, TV programme producers, Government ministers, political journals, doctors themselves, even the OED at one point (that was to rectify a wrong claim made by someone else to them.) I may be self- righteous to a degree, but that is tempered by the fact I believe I'm fighting for my daughter's survival in this situation.

When someone (can't remember who- it might have been JFW) said join before we take you seriously, I suppose alarm bells should have rang immediately, they did slightly, but I decided to do it (though I didn't contribute editorial, just discussed on a 'COI' ticket). THAT on hindsight was wrong. I should never have 'joined'. But at the time I was wobbly about doing it. I thought there was something deeply dysfunctional as soon as I encountered key people on the talk pages.

But I think on reflection I agree with all said above. I was wholly relieved when I got banned. It allowed me to go back to criticising WP and its vagaries from the outside, and to stop pretending WP was something fair and reasonable, capable of due process, a community etc.

As someone who critiques power operations from a sociological perspective for a living, I guess I was struck at how quickly 'even' I got sucked into the WP machine, really hoping that others on WP could see how inappropriate certain behaviour was. I even went through the various processes they claim you should follow for redress, only to realise I was on an everlasting loop of intransigence.

But I certainly learned a lot about abusive power relations and irrationality from that experience. Yay? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)