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.

[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.

[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.

[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: