| |
|
  |
 ARBCOM Badsites, This is what they're saying about us ... |
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
 Mon 17th September 2007, 3:35pm
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:30am)  QUOTE(Derktar @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:16am) Although Mr. Tobias and Cla68 are doing their best, I sense some retribution coming after this is over. WP:R4Arbitrariness/Attack Sites/Evidence#Evidence Presented By GuyWell, Guy now is presenting evidence against Mr. Tobias! Truly this will be the Scopes trial of our wikiday. And I'm not even officially a party to the case! That's too rich not to copy, typos and all !!! QUOTE Evidence presented by GuyDan Tobias does not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinkedHere, Dan apparently considers that liking to sites which harass, out, attack and otherwise cause distress to Wikipedia editors, is of no real importance. While satirical, this indicates to me a profoundly inappropriate response to very genuine concerns. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Jonny  This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 17th September 2007, 4:02pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
Mon 17th September 2007, 3:58pm
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th September 2007, 3:48pm)
...or maybe it by design. Perhaps WP has figured out the ultimate weapon against dissent. Make dissent boring.
Well, look at it this way: NOR takes out any original thought. You can't even put sources together in an original way. That takes out any creativity. Then you have AGF , which means that you can't question the motives of anyone. If you do, you get banned. What we're seeing here is that even a joke (and a funny one at that), can get you banned. So there goes any eccentricity, character and humor. What does that leave? It leaves the worker bees like Antrandus, the "general accounting dept" admins like JzG and Moreschi and the A-List stars like Cyde, SlimV and Jayjg (although the last two are probably going to be the Wiki equivalent of Britney Spears before too long;...). In other words, unfunny, uncreative, procedural "cogs in the machine" who work on saving the system and who never even consider that they could be more a problem than a solution.... So, maybe you're right.... |
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
Mon 17th September 2007, 5:01pm
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:14am
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
There are a number of issues that I have with this. - They aren't focusing it appropriately. There are 5 primary sites described as "attack sites" - Wikitruth, Wikipedia Watch, Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Antisocialmedia (the first 3 specifically to do with Wikipedia, the latter 2 about many topics). These should be the 5 primary examples of what an attack site is. Other sites should be described in the context of what these sites are like. The fact that (until recently) they didn't even mention Wikitruth or Wikipedia Watch is a big problem.
- They aren't correctly defining what the sites are about. The sites are authorities on their own web sites, and all of them have stated what their goals are, and these are relatively accurate. Wikitruth is designed to undelete deleted revisions, Wikipedia Watch to out administrators, Wikipedia Review to criticise Wikipedia's problems, Encyclopedia Dramatica to make fun of people, and Antisocialmedia to analyse issues. Trying to suggest secret hidden meanings is not helpful.
- They need to determine whether a web site is harmful in essence, whether aspects of it are harmful, and whether the web site has a valid reason to be included on Wikipedia.
i) Wikitruth is only valid in terms of an article about itself and criticism of Wikipedia, but whilst it continues to have an article on itself, and continues to be mentioned in criticism of Wikipedia, it should remain. However, links should be monitored.
ii) Wikipedia Watch is valid in terms of an article about itself, criticism of Wikipedia, and criticisms of a broader context, however the "hivemind" aspect may cause personal problems to individual Wikipedia editors, and hence it should be linked carefully and appropriately.
iii) Wikipedia Review is valid in terms of any article, policy, RFA or AFD which it discusses in a thread, as it may bring up points that can be raised in the on-wiki discussion, or potentially be described as influencing a discussion. Whilst it could potentially be used to harass, this should be determined on an individual basis.
iv) Encyclopedia Dramatica is valid in terms of discussion of itself and other related topics. Since the article on ED appears to be permanently deleted, along with related articles including LJ Drama, and other issues which it is relevant including 4chan are described better elsewhere, then it has no valid purpose being mentioned. Furthermore, their use of pornography and shock images, in addition to embedded viruses suggest that it is described as spam. Henceforth, whilst articles related to it remain deleted, it should not be mentioned on Wikipedia at all, and should remain on the spam blacklist.
v) Antisocialmedia is relevant in terms of discussion of itself, and articles related to itself including Overstocked.com. It is also relevant in terms of uncovering issues related to various discussions, for example its discovery of the content of the oversighted edits. As with Wikipedia Review, it should be used correctly. - General recommendations with regards to the 5 main sites described as "attack sites":
i) Wikitruth should be mentioned with regards to itself and criticism of Wikipedia, and all care made not to allow it to be used to harass others
ii) Wikipedia Watch should be mentioned with regards to itself, criticism of Wikipedia and related issues, and all care made not to allow it to be used to harass others
iii) Wikipedia Review should be mentioned wherever relevant, in discussion pages and policy pages, and if an article on it is re-created, or it is again included in Criticism of Wikipedia then it should be mentioned there. All care should be made not to allow it to be used to harass others.
iv) Encyclopedia Dramatica should not be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia unless things change, and should remain on the spam blacklist.
v) Antisocialmedia should be mentioned where relevant, in discussion pages and policy pages, its own page and criticism of Wikipedia. All care should be made not to allow it to be used to harass others. - Further application of concepts:
With regards to all of the sites, it is clear that the issue is not the web site itself, but how it is used (with the possible exception of Encyclopedia Dramatica). An editor should be penalised when a link is used to try to harass others, not simply for including the link outright. When the link contains harassing information, then and only then should it be removed.
That a web site happens to include some questionable material does not automatically mean that it is invalid. All that we need is to ensure that the link itself, to the page itself, does not contain questionable material. Whether other pages on that site happen to contain questionable material is irrelevant, as a reader has to then click through to other material. Only the page itself is relevant. - Application with regards to other sites not generally regarded as attack sites (e.g. Michael Moore, Don Murphy):
We can determine that whilst the Michael Moore main page contains questionable material, it should not be linked on Wikipedia, in a similar way to the Don Murphy main page. However, if a sub page happens to contain questionable material, that is immaterial to the main page being linked. Therefore, it was correct to de-link these sites at the time, although these should have been re-linked once the main pages changed. However, when a sub page is attacking but the main page is not, then the main page should not be de-linked (e.g. Prison Planet). - Additional questions with regards to sites not generally regarded as attack sites (e.g. Michael Moore and Don Murphy) is whether them including an attack should be sufficient to remove them from an article where the site is notable.
An argument could be made that they are notable with regards to the article itself, but not for any discussion pages, and hence should remain in the article, regardless of whether they attack Wikipedia or any of Wikipedia's editors.
However, a counter argument could be made that protecting Wikipedia's editors is of utmost importance.
The issue perhaps is more that if a notable person chooses to attack an individual, then it really doesn't matter whether Wikipedia mentions the attack or not, as the attack is going to be notable as it was done by a notable person. Henceforth, Wikipedia cannot be held responsible in these cases, and should not seek to remove the links.
Wikipedia should not pass judgement as to whether the attacks were valid or not, or whether they are legally relevant. If Wikipedia wishes to pass judgement, they should do so in the form of assisting the affected editor with any legal action against the said notable person, rather than by removing links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SqueakBox |
Mon 17th September 2007, 6:25pm
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 10:37pm
Member No.: 1,202
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 17th September 2007, 6:08pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 17th September 2007, 1:49pm)
Dan, it says you do "not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked"! This is appalling and unforgivable! You better start recognizing!
I think you all better start recognis/zing the BIG DIFF between recognising and recognizing. No wonder there's so little Kross-Kult-Kommunication over dey !!! Jonny Can we spend the next 10 pages arguing the difference? Of course it makes a huge diference if he is attacking for not recognizing or for not recognising, the latter being better for attracting appleas to one's head, but possibly completely unacceptable to Dan's proven American heritage, Squeak  Box |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
Mon 17th September 2007, 6:32pm
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(SqueakBox @ Mon 17th September 2007, 2:25pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 17th September 2007, 6:08pm) QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 17th September 2007, 1:49pm)
Dan, it says you do "not appear to recognise the gravity of some of the attacks which have been unlinked"! This is appalling and unforgivable! You better start recognizing!
I think you all better start recognis/zing the BIG DIFF between recognising and recognizing. No wonder there's so little Kross-Kult-Kommunication over dey !!! Jonny Can we spend the next 10 pages arguing the difference? No , but I know a place where you could. Jonny |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
