Tangent To : "The Use Of Pseudonyms", A Bad Case Of Polymorphous Reversity Options

[thekohser]

I'd love to be able to edit under my real name, but about six months ago some punk college student got ticked off that I removed his name from a college article. He found my websites and spammed them, threatened my ebay account, and caused trouble for me at work with anonymous emails.

Why didn't you just return his name to the college article? Or, had you formed some motive that his name had to be removed? Why was it so important to you to remove his name?

[jd turk]

Why didn't you just return his name to the college article? Or, had you formed some motive that his name had to be removed? Why was it so important to you to remove his name?

He was just some non-notable student who tagged his name onto the Alumni section of a college article. It was the same reversion edit I've done a hundred times, except this time the person was angry enough to start stalking.

[thekohser]

Why didn't you just return his name to the college article? Or, had you formed some motive that his name had to be removed? Why was it so important to you to remove his name?

He was just some non-notable student who tagged his name onto the Alumni section of a college article. It was the same reversion edit I've done a hundred times, except this time the person was angry enough to start stalking.

I thought this was the encyclopedia anyone can edit, though? His edits were forbidden? By whom, and on what authority?

[jd turk]

Why didn't you just return his name to the college article? Or, had you formed some motive that his name had to be removed? Why was it so important to you to remove his name?

He was just some non-notable student who tagged his name onto the Alumni section of a college article. It was the same reversion edit I've done a hundred times, except this time the person was angry enough to start stalking.

I thought this was the encyclopedia anyone can edit, though? His edits were forbidden? By whom, and on what authority?

It seems like you're just wanting to start an argument about wikipedia policy, which is not what I came here for at all.

[thekohser]

I thought this was the encyclopedia anyone can edit, though? His edits were forbidden? By whom, and on what authority?

It seems like you're just wanting to start an argument about wikipedia policy, which is not what I came here for at all.

Before you forbid someone's edits on the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", wouldn't it have been more of the wiki-way to gain a consensus that his edits should be removed? Then the backlash may have been distributed to a community of opposing editors, rather than you bearing the burden on your shoulders alone.

[jd turk]

Before you forbid someone's edits on the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", wouldn't it have been more of the wiki-way to gain a consensus that his edits should be removed? Then the backlash may have been distributed to a community of opposing editors, rather than you bearing the burden on your shoulders alone.

Ah, I understand your question better now. His edit was reverted by myself and at least three other editors. Standing consensus seems to be against people adding names to lists of notable alumni if they person isn't notable enough to show up on google, much less have their own WP page.

And if this guy was nutty enough to stalk off-wiki, I'm not certain getting consensus and explaining it to him over and again would have made a difference.

This is just one experience, I understand, I'm just using it as an example of how without accountability for everyone, safety can't be guaranteed.

[anthony]

It was the same reversion edit I've done a hundred times

Repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results is another prima facie symptom of dysfunction.

[jd turk]

It was the same reversion edit I've done a hundred times

Repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results is another prima facie symptom of dysfunction.

I meant "same reversion" in a stylistic manner, not literally deleting this guy's insertion of his name a hundred times. I wasn't expecting different results, which is why this was so surprising.

And to bring it all home again, led to a username change or two to protect my personal life from the boogeyman.

And...scene.

[anthony]

It was the same reversion edit I've done a hundred times

Repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results is another prima facie symptom of dysfunction.

I meant "same reversion" in a stylistic manner, not literally deleting this guy's insertion of his name a hundred times. I wasn't expecting different results, which is why this was so surprising.

And to bring it all home again, led to a username change or two to protect my personal life from the boogeyman.

And...scene.

Still, you don't find anything dysfunctional about spending your time on the Sisyphean task of deleting people's names from some website which allows anyone to come along and add their name to it?

This post has been edited by anthony: Wed 7th May 2008, 6:50pm

[jd turk]

Still, you don't find anything dysfunctional about spending your time on the Sisyphean task of deleting people's names from some website which allows anyone to come along and add their name to it?

Hi. Pleasure to meet you. I just found this place, and am still looking around, working myself into a comfort level where I can talk about things. Much like many of the other posters here, after some of my experiences at WP I have a lot of questions about something that was once a source of information and a harmless time-waster. It seems to have grown into something far greater and more involved that I'm not sure I want to be a part of, and so I've come here to talk to other people who appear to have gone through the same revelation.

Can we save the deep philosophical "People Who Edit On Wikipedia Are Foolish" conversation until later on, please?

[Milton Roe]

Can we save the deep philosophical "People Who Edit On Wikipedia Are Foolish" conversation until later on, please?

Well, some people believe that. Some people think we should even talk to China or North Korea or Iran or Mayanmar while they're such bastards. Other people believe in constructive engagement and limited relief to the suffering. The hardliners hold that this merely keeps the bad government in power. It's all the same politics you'll see in the real world, since Wikipedia's a complex enterprise.

What does seem clear is that WP is suffering from a bad case of lack of direction, since it runs on Chairman Mao's little red book and various interpretations of it (okay, they call it something different, but it's the same idea), and these are not sufficient to produce a very nice society. Some of us have suggested fixes, but chairman Mao is still alive and in absolute power, and worse still, there's a particularly nasty Cultural Revolution of the Students taking place right now. And we have no Nixon to send Okay, I've stretched this metaphor all it can take.

So don't be put off by some people here, who've gotten the boot from Wikipedia, and are making a virtue of necessity (or else have to satisfy themselves with the thin and bitter returns of sock accounts). Others of us are still editors in good standing at WP, and there are even a few admins who read here. We're less monolithic than WP is, in keeping with our greater freedom of speech and less subjection to witchhuntery. I myself still sometimes edit hard science articles on WP, often at arm's length and holding my nose, a bit like taking diapers to the trash. I do it for the children Your experience may vary.

But welcome. And don't assume that any of us speaks for the others. This is Wikipedia Review, NOT Wikipedia:

1) There is no official partly line here at WR, except maybe try to be reasonably nice (lampooning is definitely allowed, however).

2) Again, you're safe here. Take a deep breath, therefore, and say what you want to say, without fear that a bunch of shitheads will gang up on you with tricky rules, and choke you off.

Milt

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Wed 7th May 2008, 10:17pm

[thekohser]

Still, you don't find anything dysfunctional about spending your time on the Sisyphean task of deleting people's names from some website which allows anyone to come along and add their name to it?

Okay, I have an idea.

Let's make a game out of the Sisyphean task aspect of name-adding.

Anytime anyone of you is ever at a public-access IP address (Starbucks, a library, a web kiosk at the airport, etc.), I want you to add "Gregory Kohs" to any of the following Wikipedia articles:

List_of_persons_associated_with_Emory_University (my undergrad alma mater)

List_of_Temple_University_people (graduate degree alma mater)

Just red-link my name, and you can add whatever description of me that you want, as long as it's not defamatory. Examples:
"[[Gregory Kohs]] - Founder of Wikipedia Review"
"[[Gregory Kohs]] - Team-member of runner-up Florida statewide Academic Team competition, 1986"
"[[Gregory Kohs]] - Self-described Internet gadfly"
"[[Gregory Kohs]] - Only German-Polish male born in Jackson, Michigan to graduate from Emory in 1990."

Have fun with it. This could be an everlasting Internet meme that never goes away. Until the Wikipediots are forced to permanently lock the above Lists. Then we just move on to Awbrey. Then Somey. Then whomever else wants to play.

Good luck, players!

Gregory Kohs - Inventor of the Add Kohs to Wikipedia game!

[Milton Roe]

But welcome. And don't assume that any of us speaks for the others. This is Wikipedia Review, NOT Wikipedia:

1) There is no official partly line here at WR, except maybe try to be reasonably nice (lampooning is definitely allowed, however).

And I forgot to add: Have you ever seen the Stephen Colbert segment called THE WɸRD? Well, if you read Wikipedia, that's Colbert. WR, the running commentary, is THE WɸRD.

[thekohser]

Good luck, players!

Gregory Kohs - Inventor of the Add Kohs to Wikipedia game!

My game is not getting any traction yet. Was I being selfish? I'm more than happy to start the game off with someone else's identity. Maybe Awbrey wouldn't mind? Perhaps Joshua Zelinsky?

Greg

[jd turk]

My game is not getting any traction yet. Was I being selfish? I'm more than happy to start the game off with someone else's identity. Maybe Awbrey wouldn't mind? Perhaps Joshua Zelinsky?

Greg

Well, I'd try but I've just received my first-ever block, which was trumpeted by an admin taking a six-paragraph explanation of what was going on and responding with "i don't care," and blocking me. Numerous other editors and another admin have tried to get him to explain, but he's apparently offline. He made exactly one action in the last twelve hours, which was to block me without discussion before going back offline for the duration of the block.

I'd like to thank the Academy for this award, and the universe for this epiphany...

[thekohser]

Good luck, players!

Gregory Kohs - Inventor of the Add Kohs to Wikipedia game!

My game is not getting any traction yet. Was I being selfish? I'm more than happy to start the game off with someone else's identity. Maybe Awbrey wouldn't mind? Perhaps Joshua Zelinsky?

Greg

Okay, we're underway. Time for some Wikipediot to return serve.

[Moulton]

Greg, to the extent that you are toying with the more narcissistic respondents on WP, please consider what Sam Vaknin has to say about those who engage in relationships with narcissists.

[thekohser]

Greg, to the extent that you are toying with the more narcissistic respondents on WP, please consider what Sam Vaknin has to say about those who engage in relationships with narcissists.

"You must ACTIVELY seek relationships with narcissists and ONLY with narcissists, no matter what your (bitter and traumatic) past experience has been."

I reject that this applies to me at all.

Barry, I have positive, collegial relationships with Wikipedians whom I do not consider narcissists (Cla68, PrivateMusings, Viridae, Anthere, and MPerel, to name just a few). Do you consider them narcissists?

If I may be a bit blunt... Barry, could you please exercise just a one-week moratorium on your psycho-analysis of my behaviors related to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation? See how that goes for you, then next Monday, you can decide if you want to return to this line of analysis or not, and I won't be offended in the least.

Greg

[Moulton]

Greg, to the extent that you are toying with the more narcissistic respondents on WP, please consider what Sam Vaknin has to say about those who engage in relationships with narcissists.

"You must ACTIVELY seek relationships with narcissists and ONLY with narcissists, no matter what your (bitter and traumatic) past experience has been."

I reject that this applies to me at all.

I'm not suggesting that it does. I just wanted you to be aware of Sam Vaknin's comments about relationships with narcissistic characters.

Barry, I have positive, collegial relationships with Wikipedians whom I do not consider narcissists (Cla68, PrivateMusings, Viridae, Anthere, and MPerel, to name just a few). Do you consider them narcissists?

Nope. The most narcissistic figures on WP are also the least likely to participate here.

If I may be a bit blunt... Barry, could you please exercise just a one-week moratorium on your psycho-analysis of my behaviors related to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation? See how that goes for you, then next Monday, you can decide if you want to return to this line of analysis or not, and I won't be offended in the least.

I'm not psychoanalyzing your behaviors, Greg. I'm just raising to your attention some potentially useful information that could help you fend off potential criticisms of your tendency to toy with the more reactive characters on Wikipedia.