The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V « < 5 6 7  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> JoshuaZ looks at Section 230, and gives me an idea...
Proabivouac
post Tue 18th December 2007, 2:56pm
Post #121


Bane of all wikiland
*******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined: Thu 23rd Aug 2007, 8:25am
Member No.: 2,647

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:02am) *

I have never figured out why we censor names in the first place. They have never done that for the users that they abuse.

Per Moulton, they've not yet advanced to the stage where they understand that other people count, too. To Wikipedians, their colleagues are real people; everyone else is abstract.

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 2:28pm) *

Could we have a public conversation to sift through these policy issues and see if we can sort out what gets through the sifter?

Where I stand:

Wikipedia adminstrators should be treated the way they treat others, individual by individual. Administrators who don't violate others' privacy and don't defame third parties, and don't support others who do, deserve the same consideration in return. Those who do, don't.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 18th December 2007, 2:59pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 18th December 2007, 3:31pm
Post #122


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:56am) *
Where I stand:

Wikipedia administrators should be treated the way they treat others, individual by individual. Administrators who don't violate others' privacy and don't defame third parties, and don't support others who do, deserve the same consideration in return. Those who do, don't.

The problem I see with that approach is that you end up replicating the worst offenders with equal and opposite mistreatment. The fact that you only did it to that one worst offender is going to be lost on random observers who don't realize you are acting as a perfect mirror to each individual onlooker.

It occurs to me that a better strategy would be to respond to offensive conduct with the minimum effective response to prevent, minimize, neutralize, ameliorate, or remediate the damage caused by the original offense.

Or, to paraphrase Mohandas Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and pretty soon the whole world is blind."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rootology
post Tue 18th December 2007, 4:16pm
Post #123


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,489
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 11:11pm
Member No.: 877



More Joshua comedy:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/087663.html

QUOTE

Quoting David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:

>
>> Is that a "law" of Godwin's variety... as a discussion of Wikipedia
>> gets longer, the probability of a link to WR being introduced
>> approaches one?
>
>
> The introduction of a mention of it. More importantly, it's as
> accurate an indicator that the thread is dead and can be ignored.
>
>
> - d.

I would hope not. I mean Wikipedia Review is present and is something
that needs
to be dealt with
both because they harass and out our users and because
sometimes, very rarely have good points or mention things that aren't getting
wide notice on Wikipedia that arguably should (again very rarely). It might
however be an indication when WR shows up due to a passing mention of WR as
this one.



Dealt with? Uh oh. He went to Yale. I wonder if he's a Connecticut native like myself? Because we do have mafia back home, and dealt with could take on whole new connotations. Are they gonna find Somey buried in a corn field, or will Daniel end up as a talking fish head?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 18th December 2007, 4:30pm
Post #124


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It would be helpful if Joshua would publish a short list of the rare items on WR that he judges as helpful, so that we could vector our musings more in that mutually beneficial direction.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rootology
post Tue 18th December 2007, 4:35pm
Post #125


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,489
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 11:11pm
Member No.: 877



QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:30am) *

It would be helpful if Joshua would publish a short list of the rare items on WR that he judges as helpful, so that we could vector our musings more in that mutually beneficial direction.


I'm sure he along with half the admins have already seen your request.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joseph100
post Tue 18th December 2007, 6:25pm
Post #126


Senior Member like Viridae
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 4:01am
Member No.: 871



QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 18th December 2007, 10:35am) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:30am) *

It would be helpful if Joshua would publish a short list of the rare items on WR that he judges as helpful, so that we could vector our musings more in that mutually beneficial direction.


I'm sure he along with half the admins have already seen your request.


Question: Would you trust your bio to a punk like this???
FORUM Image


Question: What influence would a fellow like this would have in the academic community?
see the following open email for enlightenment.

The WIF, Dr. David Hill
QUOTE

Email Reply of the 29th October 2006 from Dr. David Hill, Chief Executive of WIF to Professor Carl Edwin Lindgren FWIF


Email sent

Dear Carl,



Yes it certainly seems so. In our case we even went to the top and although initially he seemed to be going to do something about matters, he eventually went very quite ( so quite that we never hear another thing from him), and even though he told the WIF that they only needed to deal with him. So much for the executive director of Wikipedia therefore if the top person cannot be relied upon to bring a bit of stability to the situation. It is a bit like anarchy I believe the way that they go about things. In many ways very undemocratic as the louder you shout and put misinformation about, you WIN at Wikipedia according to our experience. A ganging up situation where if you challenge them they get worse and do not act like responsible human beings !



If ever I have chance to meet up with their founder or that silent executive director I shall certainly confront them.



Thanks for your feedback and I hope that you are well.



Sincerely,



David



Ps. We even sent the Exec. Dir. a copy of our registration documents as a Swiss charity to prove who we were. But this did nothing and it appeared in the end that our face just did not fit - possibly because we questioned their wisdom.




In the end would you trust or deal with the collection of
sycophants, loons, tin hats, Jimbo Juice cultes, pathalogical lairs, Punk kids, power tripping niliist and all the other collection of pornographers and other miscritants and basement dwelling freaks.

This post has been edited by Joseph100: Tue 18th December 2007, 6:26pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Tue 18th December 2007, 8:21pm
Post #127


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 18th December 2007, 1:02am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 5:59am) *

...ace in the hole...


uh-oh, no you did-int!! you just made mediacrity-mantanmoreland supersekret paranoid again.


http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/12/17/f...ictures-pwn3d1/
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AB
post Sat 22nd December 2007, 6:14pm
Post #128


'...I will be generous and give you a week.'
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue 28th Aug 2007, 2:26am
Member No.: 2,742



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 16th December 2007, 10:00pm) *
Does the drop box require a picture ID when signing a return receipt, or can the go-fer just sign it, "Thanks idiots — Yours truly, Jayjg"?


That could easily depend on the delivery person, or whomever
is there overseeing the signing. 'Does this person even speak
English?' may be a valid question, if immigrants are hired.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AB
post Sat 22nd December 2007, 6:45pm
Post #129


'...I will be generous and give you a week.'
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue 28th Aug 2007, 2:26am
Member No.: 2,742



QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 4:30pm) *
It would be helpful if Joshua would publish a short list of the rare items on WR that he judges as helpful, so that we could vector our musings more in that mutually beneficial direction.


I'm guessing they would like discussion in the 'Editors' section of
the website to be restricted to noting when people violate their
policy, i.e. no ethical commentary, and even then for there to be
no criticism of people who have high rank.

(In one sense, they are right - it is better to talk to people than
about people. On the other hand, for many of the people here,
talking to these people is not an option, leaving talking about
them as the only option besides accepting being gagged.
Furthermore, the inverse relationship between how tolerant they
are of criticism and how highly the target of criticism ranks in their
hierarchy makes them hypocrites.)

Furthermore, I'm guessing they'd like further discussion in the
'Articles' section of the website, detailing how articles deviate from
their policy, suggesting sources and improvements.

(A few problems here - may of the members here are banned.
Isn't the whole point of banning people that you don't want their
help anymore? Well, not necessarily. Even if you are banned,
they might accuse you of 'blackmailing' them if you state you
have no interest in contributing to articles just because they
banned you. And then some of us are on strike anyway....)

Note they do not want ethical commentary. They want to be
judged by their own standards. (Errr?)

I'm not sure if ethical debates over their policy offend them more
or less than commentary on the high ranking members of the WP
hierarchy. It probably depends on who you ask. On the one hand,
they might consider criticism of their policy to be an attack against
*all of WP*. On the other hand, their own policy does technically
say no personal attacks, not no group attacks, so it should
theoretically be more acceptable to them than criticism of individual
editors. In reality, some of them may be more upset about criticism
of WP as a whole than criticism of individual editors, since they
believe the project 'transcends' all individuals.

Disclaimer: Individual members of WP have individual opinions.
I am sure my summary does not reflect all of them.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AB
post Sat 22nd December 2007, 9:08pm
Post #130


'...I will be generous and give you a week.'
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue 28th Aug 2007, 2:26am
Member No.: 2,742



QUOTE('Daniel Brandt's Scroogle website')
There are other proxies that can protect your privacy on the web.
Almost all are general-purpose proxies that cloak all of your web
activity behind an IP address that is not easily traced to your
service provider. One is Anonymizer.com. A possible problem with
this one is that the founder, Lance Cottrell, has connections with
the FBI and the Voice of America. It also costs money for a
reasonable level of service. Another is Tor, which is much more
secure. But it is also slow, because Tor is a complicated system
that needs networks of volunteers to run server software. Juvenile
surfers from video pirates to rogue Wikipedia editors tend to clog
free services such as Tor, which slows them down even more.


Actually, Tor's speed has improved. Part of the problem was
that the lower bandwidth nodes were being overutilised while
the higher bandwidth nodes were being underutilised.

Anyway, in Tor 0.1.2.17, major load-balancing changes were
made. It was estimated that this would increase Tor's capacity
by a factor of four once the networked rebalanced. This was
months ago, so most people should've upgraded by now.

See mailing list message.


QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 2:23pm) *
Scroogle is blocked by some corporate firewalls as a "Proxy Avoidance" problem. I presume that the Scroogle plug-in on Wikipedia Review could trigger that sort of filter? That wouldn't be a good thing, and I wouldn't want some users of WR to find the entire site blocked because of that type of filter. Is that even possible? I'm not a complete propeller-head, so I certainly don't have the answers.

Greg


You should really read the Tor design paper draft,
Design of a blocking-resistant anonymity system.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V « < 5 6 7
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd 7 14, 3:33am