| |
|
  |
 Wikipedia: A Threat To Civil Society, No More Monsieur Nice Guy |
|
|
| SqueakBox |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 293
Joined:
Member No.: 1,202
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 5:38pm)  No More Monsieur Nice GuyAfter all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways. And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain. In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose. Jon Awbrey I look forward to that as any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome, Squeak (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif) Box |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
It is probably easiest for me if I begin with the thoughts that woke me up at 5 o'clock this morning, evidently prompted by my previous night's reading of the evidence presented by SlimVirgin re the Request for Arbitration re what Wikipediots like to call Attack Sites, which thoughts I was consequently moved to try and share with that body on that page, submitting them under the authorship of Name Redacted. That attempt was abended by the usual crowd of Free Speech Abenders, but some trains of thought can be difficult to stop once they get their momentum going, so let me bring it all home to the Rounders of the Roundhouse here. Evidence presented by Name RedactedI have never spoken in one of these proceedings before, so I hope that you will forgive me if I do not know the details of protocol. I am hopeful also that you will be patient with me as I make my sometimes faltering attempts to say my peace. I will try to state my observations plainly and simply. My critics tell me that I sometimes succeed, but it usually takes me several trials to do so. I have inserted my comments at this place because I want to begin by commenting on some of the points raised just above by SlimVirgin. I have to go to the dentist in a little while, but it looks like I have a half an hour, and I will be back later today. Name Redacted 09:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC) I will need to make a few bird's-eye-view observations first, filling in the details later. I believe that the issue of badsites is really just a symptom of a deeper issue that is not being fully addressed in the Wikipedia community. I believe that facing the deeper issue is critical to the future viability of Wikipedia. I suppose everybody says that, but I honestly believe it. Name Redacted 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Preliminary questionsSlimVirgin mentions a number of issues that I think are in need of further clarification among the Wikipedian user community before it will be possible to make fair and principled decisions about external links and references. One of these issues concerns the scope of Wikipedian policies like those about Neutrality, Reliability, and Verifiability. The question is, do these policies apply only to article content, or do they apply also to discussion and policy pages like this one? I do not know the answer, and it is my impression that many editors and administrators are confused about this, which is why I am asking the question. Name Redacted 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Unhealthy trendsTo be continued … Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 9:10pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th September 2007, 4:53pm)
Okay, Jonny, is that your sock or not???
If that's your sock, it's brilliant!
If it's not your sock, it's even bettah!
So, from one Fiery angel to another, what's the straight story here??
(I'm still laughing. JzG, you've been pwned!!)
I neither confirm nor deny my authority over any authorship that I do not personally authorize. But thanks for the occasion to say that — I've been working on it for months. Jon Awbrey If this whole point of this is to be able to say "No more Monsieur Nice Guy", you've got a standing ovation over here! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Joseph100 |
|
Senior Member like Viridae
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined:
Member No.: 871
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 11:38am) No More Monsieur Nice GuyAfter all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways. And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain. In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose. Jon Awbrey I DO. IF you yell the lie, long enough and hard enough from the highest hill, then the lie becomes the"excepted truth" (see flat earth, and Joseph Goebbels) and the darkness falls where abuse and enslavement become the accepted norm. I believe, wikipedia should be bought down, diminished, and or shown what it really is and why it should never ever be taken as a place of accurate information or pure motive. This post has been edited by Joseph100: |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Tue 18th September 2007, 7:52pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 11:38am) No More Monsieur Nice GuyAfter all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways. And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain. In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose. Jon Awbrey I DO. IF you yell the lie, long enough and hard enough from the highest hill, then the lie becomes the the "excepted truth" (see flat earth, and Joseph Goebbels) and the darkness falls where abuse and enslavement become the accepted norm. I believe, wikipedia should be bought down, diminished, and or shown what it really is and why it should never ever be taken as a place of accurate information or pure motive. Didn't Lenin say something similar? If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:12pm)
Didn't Lenin say something similar? If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth?
I don't know if it was Vlad or some other Impaler who first proposed the hypothesis, but we can always do the experiment — any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome Nope, it still sounds false as all get-out to me — how about you? Then again, maybe we just didn't repeat the lie long enough. Nevermind, through, there's already a place for that. Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
Let us revisit the Evidence Presented by SlimVirgin to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (WAC) in the matter of "Attack Sites", as that was the incident that incited me to take the novel if not indeed virginal step, for me, of trying to Talk To The ArbCom — its's the new Talk To The Hand — under the authorship of Name Redacted. QUOTE Evidence presented by SlimVirginThe controversy over attack sites was created by people who regularly post to those sites. They created a bunch of slippery-slope strawman positions — "the policy means we can't link to the New York Times!!!" — that other Wikipedians mistook as an implication of the real position. Some common sense is needed. The anti-linking position is simply this: Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a *substantial* amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Wikipedia. The only websites affected are Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Watch, AntiSocialMedia, and a webpage run by Nobs01. Users who try to apply it to michaelmoore.com are simply mistaken. Mistaken application of policy need not affect the policy itself: if it did, we'd have no policies, given that they're all misapplied on a daily basis. The anti-linking position needn't undermine content. If any of these sites becomes the focus of stories published by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore added to the main namespace, there would still be no need to link to it — our source for material about a notable website would be the reliable source, not the website itself. Mainstream newspapers writing about newsworthy websites that contain defamation or threats of violence often don't even name them, and they certainly don't offer URLs. Their attitude is "this is news and therefore we're reporting it", rather than "hey, come and have a look!" The important point is that stalkers who create websites for the purpose of scaring our volunteers shouldn't be rewarded by having links to their sites posted by the same project that exposed the volunteer to the stalking in the first place. That is surely a matter of basic common sense and decency. If a rare and unforeseen situation arises where doing so really is necessary, then IAR applies, but those exceptions needn't affect the basic position. Finally, just because we have a policy (written or otherwise) that says these sites shouldn't be linked to doesn't mean that every single instance of such a link must always and immediately be removed, and posters blocked. It's a policy best enforced with a cluestick rather than a sledgehammer. SlimVirgin 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC) In view of the evidence that Name Redacted is now and forever blocked by the Jay J.G. known as Jpgordon — incidentally supplying continuing evidence, as if it were ever in short supply, of exactly what kind of "welcome" Wikipedia holds out to "any serious, well thought out criticism of Wikipedia" — I will continue my responses in a Forum where the capacity for critical reason is not yet an altogether lost cause. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Joseph100 |
|
Senior Member like Viridae
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined:
Member No.: 871
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 20th September 2007, 7:42am) Let us revisit the Evidence Presented by SlimVirgin to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (WAC) in the matter of "Attack Sites", as that was the incident that incited me to take the novel if not indeed virginal step, for me, of trying to Talk To The ArbCom — its's the new Talk To The Hand — under the authorship of Name Redacted. QUOTE Evidence presented by SlimVirginThe controversy over attack sites was created by people who regularly post to those sites. They created a bunch of slippery-slope strawman positions — "the policy means we can't link to the New York Times!!!" — that other Wikipedians mistook as an implication of the real position. Some common sense is needed. The anti-linking position is simply this: Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a *substantial* amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Wikipedia. The only websites affected are Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Watch, AntiSocialMedia, and a webpage run by Nobs01. Users who try to apply it to michaelmoore.com are simply mistaken. Mistaken application of policy need not affect the policy itself: if it did, we'd have no policies, given that they're all misapplied on a daily basis. The anti-linking position needn't undermine content. If any of these sites becomes the focus of stories published by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore added to the main namespace, there would still be no need to link to it — our source for material about a notable website would be the reliable source, not the website itself. Mainstream newspapers writing about newsworthy websites that contain defamation or threats of violence often don't even name them, and they certainly don't offer URLs. Their attitude is "this is news and therefore we're reporting it", rather than "hey, come and have a look!" The important point is that stalkers who create websites for the purpose of scaring our volunteers shouldn't be rewarded by having links to their sites posted by the same project that exposed the volunteer to the stalking in the first place. That is surely a matter of basic common sense and decency. If a rare and unforeseen situation arises where doing so really is necessary, then IAR applies, but those exceptions needn't affect the basic position. Finally, just because we have a policy (written or otherwise) that says these sites shouldn't be linked to doesn't mean that every single instance of such a link must always and immediately be removed, and posters blocked. It's a policy best enforced with a cluestick rather than a sledgehammer. SlimVirgin 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC) In view of the evidence that Name Redacted is now and forever blocked by the Jay J.G. known as Jpgordon — incidentally supplying continuing evidence, as if it were ever in short supply, of exactly what kind of "welcome" Wikipedia holds out to "any serious, well thought out criticism of Wikipedia" — I will continue my responses in a Forum where the capacity for critical reason is not yet an altogether lost cause. Jon Awbrey See a true picture of a typical wikiadminidiot... WE LOVE TO EAT EDITORS.. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 18th September 2007, 6:50pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:26pm)
Well, we don't want to be picking on Guys as a class.
Oh good. That bit about No More Monsieur Nice Guy was just my way of signaling a significant sea-change in my attitude toward Wikipedia. Along with that change in attitude there goes a change in approach. I just wanted to prevent people whose opinions I value from being confused about the fact that I will in future not be playing by the same rules that I played by in the past. Wikipedia is an Online Game that is designed to enculcate its players in a particular belief system. Given Bain's Maxim that a belief is that on which a person is prepared to act, this means that the Game socializes the players who succeed in it to particular ways of acting, forms of conduct, and dispositions to behave in distinctive manners. It is therefore a Training Online Game (TOG) or an Online Game Intended For Training (OGIFT). Beware of Geeks, etc. Next Question. To what Modes Or Forms Of Conduct are the players being entrained? Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Joseph100 |
|
Senior Member like Viridae
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined:
Member No.: 871
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 21st September 2007, 8:44pm) QUOTE(guy @ Tue 18th September 2007, 6:50pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:26pm)
Well, we don't want to be picking on Guys as a class.
Oh good. That bit about No More Monsieur Nice Guy was just my way of signaling a significant sea-change in my attitude toward Wikipedia. Along with that change in attitude there goes a change in approach. I just wanted to prevent people whose opinions I value from being confused about the fact that I will in future not be playing by the same rules that I played by in the past. Wikipedia is an Online Game that is designed to enculcate its players in a particular belief system. Given Bain's Maxim that a belief is that on which a person is prepared to act, this means that the Game socializes the players who succeed in it to particular ways of acting, forms of conduct, and dispositions to behave in distinctive manners. It is therefore a Training Online Game (TOG) or an Online Game Intended For Training (OGIFT). Beware of Geeks, etc. Next Question. To what Modes Or Forms Of Conduct are the players being entrained? Jon Awbrey g-damn right!!! We should now apply rules of "REAL WORLD" to Wacky World of Wiki Cult Belief System. Or, WWWCBS a. [[US:LAW]] Above all else, the foundation members and servers live in florida and are under the juristions of US law, Civil and Criminal. This is the starting point of Dealing with the WWWCBS. This post has been edited by Joseph100: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Castle Rock |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 358
Joined:
From: Oregon
Member No.: 3,051
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:38am) No More Monsieur Nice GuyAfter all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways. And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain. In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose. Jon Awbrey A threat to society. I think you are vastly overestimating the relevancy Wikipedia and the internet as a whole has to the majority of people's lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Sat 22nd September 2007, 9:42pm)
A threat to society.
I think you are vastly overestimating the relevancy Wikipedia and the internet as a whole has to the majority of people's lives.
Gosh, I hope so. I would love it if I could wake up one day from this waking nightmare and see that my Cassandroid Anxieties were all a bad dream. I remember the time when Spiro Agnew dismissed the waves of protesters that were warning us about the last Vietnam War, calling them all a bunch of Crying Cassandras. The poor jerk did not even seem to realize what he had just said. And here we are back to the failures of public education again. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
