I just went over to Derktar's excellent 'timeline' [link removed, looks like the number goes to a totally different thread now, I guess because of all the thread wipes that were done, ugh - anyone remember what the title was?]
... and, BTW, loved the interview Somey, I must have skipped over that when it happened originally!
Kinda shame privatemusings seemed to flick pretty fast from you to moulton and the others tho, didn't really seem to give you much more of a chance to say anything more than introducing yourself, kinda distracts from the point that the point of the site *isn't* just "for banned editors"... I think that was probably the reason for a lot of the backlash there, reinforced prejudices, it was a bit "oh, here's Somey, and this is wikipedia review: *passes to the LOUDEST people they that aren't representative of everyone, whilst ignoring the quieter people who tend to post more calmer less vitriolic stuff.*" ---- Hate brings more hate, should have had an announcement here asking for opinions from everyone really and get more in it from the start, I realise they had 'other voices' at the end, but the whole thing shouldn't have been about "Who's the ANGRIEST?" Bleh, too late now tho.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6
Keep - Stop treating wikipedia like a battleground. Banned people are not enemies. Read that again. Some of you insist on falsely believing that banned people are enemies. That belief causes you to treat wikipedia like a battleground rather than like an encyclopedia workplace. Just because someone's contributions are such that they are not helpful to the current processes we use to create an encyclopedia does not mean they are enemies. Brandt's efforts helped us to create WP:BLP. Somey removed some of the worst abusive language at the Wikipedia Review. It is against policy to treat wikipedia like a battleground. It is counter-productive to make enemies. Who is creating drama here? Not the Wikipedia Review people, but instead the people who are playing wikipedia like a game of us versus them rather than like a place to write an encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)This stuff is funny, tho :
Keep. This seems to be "Son of BADSITES: BADPODCASTS!" *Dan T.* (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Is screaming "BADSITES! BADSITES! WAH! WAH! WAH!" the only arrow in your rhetorical quiver? --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I also like throwing in references to Orwell's 1984, Scientology's Suppressive Persons, and various relevant Twilight Zone episodes
, when they seem apt. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Did Somey purchase his mic at Troll-Mart or something? Get a new mic, troll!↑ Giggle. I could quote it a LOT, but yeah, read if you haven't seen. At first I was reading it like I would one of blissyu2 or that other crazy, can't remember name, posted rather deranged oneliners with smileys a lot? And that one who kept making random legal threats in email and trying to get the FBI and military generals on me? But yeah, it's a fake. Sad that it's actually believable, though.
The real story here is that I have uncovered the actual recording of this stalk radio program; had Decent Wikipedians[..]
Apparently there was a thread on it too::wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=17174ANYWAY. I thought I'd google around cos a) it's kind of interesting to look back on it and b) always fun to read about 'what happened next' when I stopped getting personally involved in that drama...
Some people are just drawn into these obsessive behaviours and *do not have the ability to learn to change themselves*, literally, not the ability. See the same mental type in Baxter. It's not *really* their fault if they *can't* learn. And even, *don't want to* learn is also partly biological, hormones, tribal behaviour... At some point you have to say, yeah, people have free will... But so much is affected by external factors I'm not really sure where to draw the line.
Durova maybe deserves at least an honourary mention for the "citizen's militia"/gestapo-like behaviour. Like, an honourary trenchcoat/cape dagger like a secret society or jackboot or something.
• old.nabble.com/Missed-Opportunities-to-have-avoided-the-Durova-Case-td13965132.htmlThe big thing though, is: soon as one is knocked down, new ones rise, it's the problem of the format not the people. Concentrating on the people loses the important question of WHY it happens when humans gather in large groups, and even more importantly: how to prevent it and steer people towards acting more like humans act ideally rather than how they actually tend to.
But how, that is the big question? [b]I was wondering what you lot thought specifically before asking anyone else, cos I'm sure it's been discussed to death already, but yeah. Why does everything always seem to fail every time someone tries to create something organised by people? It can't be rigid structures needed to 'enforce' people to act certain ways, because Wikipedia has that.
At least, enforced by human beings, we know that doesn't work. I think maybe the idea of making real names and stuff is actually the wrong way, maybe the whole problem with Wikipedia is that it's based *so much* on peoples' personalities, maybe something that is *more* anonymous is the solution?
But then part of the reason why Wikipedia has less problems than it does is because most people don't realise that the threat of bans etc are empty and unenforcable, it's a bit of a mind game like airport security etc. Grounded in human nature. And the social aspects of people decorating pages like peacocks and fluffing up their personal power/responsibilities is comparable to myspace/facebook, which actually gives people more of an attachment on what they do and keeps them coming back more than they might otherwise. I dunno.
(BTW some of your blog posts are really good I should try get more read!)
(BTW anyone find that compared to other forums WR is a bit hard to read on large screens like 1920x? The lines carry on forever, we prob should look at making it adjust (though not locked in, like with skin), I can only imagine how it must look on 30" 2560x screens, hmm)This post has been edited by Selina: Mon 12th March 2012, 1:21pm