Zoe vs. NIU, Was: Jimbo approves of vandalism! Options

[Jonny Cache]

You know, if I wanted to show that Wikipedia is unreliable, I could find THOUSANDS of ways to do it besides give out an assignment to conduct ongoing vandalism to a class of students.

The reply from the NIU Ethics Officer is just a pile of shit.

Wikipedia is a Blog. The word vandalism, as used internal to this Blog, has no determinate meaning to outsiders. As far as external observers can tell, Wikipedia users are constantly vandalizing the subject matters to which many of them have dedicated their lives and sacred honors. By and large, Wikipedia website "administrators" are engaged in a form of anti-education that is warping the minds of naive people about the very nature of knowledge, and there is no reason that real educators should have to respect what goes on there.

The word encyclopedia, as used internal to the Wikipedia Blog, vandalizes the very meaning of the word. Wikipedia has not earned the right to appropriate this word because Wikipedia adamantly refuses to do the things that it would take to earn anybody else's respect.

People of good will and intelligence granted the Wikipedia experiment the initial benefit of the doubt. In time they began to warn the Wikipedia populace about the collapse of credibility that it was headed for. But all that people of good will and intelligence got for their troubles was a constant stream of spit in their faces.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 28th January 2007, 10:46pm

[gomi]

Well, sorry, but Jimbo's wrong on this one, and if people's only answer is to stick knives in Zoe for trying to do what she thought was right, then I'm done with WP.

I'm not saying Zoe deserves to be pilloried for this, but neither did/does the NIU professor. And if Zoe's unwilling to make those kinds of compromises, or at least try to be gracious about it, she will become a liability to them regardless of how well-intentioned she is.

OK, since Somey won't say it, I will: Zoe deserves to be pilloried for this, she is a (small) liability to the larger pile of liability that is Wikipedia, and if the likes of Elara can't understand how over-the-top this debate has gotten, then she should leave it, because she has lost her grip on objective reality.

The reality is this: suggesting that someone vandalizing (or suggests vandalism of) Wikipedia -- a site vandalized by dozens (if not hundreds) of anonymous editors every minute or two, a site where there is often no agreement on what is truth and what is vandalism, a site whose operators regularly run off most contributors with expertise and actual scholarly credentials, and a site whose pseudo-juducial and ethical procedures resemeble the Inquisition more than modern systems -- i.e. suggestis rearranging the turds in the dung-heap to see how long it takes the beetles to move them back -- someone who suggests this is anything more than the usual order of business, indeed that it is a federal crime, well, such people have lost the plot, missed the boat, and are a few nuggets short of a Happy Meal.

I suggest that, indeed a good "pillorying" may serve to focus the attention on what is important: either fixing the broken social system ensuring the inaccuracy of information on Wikipedia; or fixing the self-replicating publicity machine that perpetuates the illusion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Ahem. I feel better now. Perhaps I will search under the sofa cushions for spare change to buy some punctuation to insert into the rant above.

[Somey]

I suggest that, indeed a good "pillorying" may serve to focus the attention on what is important: either fixing the broken social system ensuring the inaccuracy of information on Wikipedia; or fixing the self-replicating publicity machine that perpetuates the illusion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

All your points are valid, of course... But is there no risk of the opposite effect, namely people thinking they've fixed the problem simply by punishing User:Zoe specifically somehow?

Zoe certainly isn't the only one with these strange and mystifying beliefs regarding Wikipedia's relationship with the law and the outside world in general. It may be that the root of this particular problem is the common set of misconceptions they're laboring under, even though it may be unrealistic to think they're ever going to reform themselves in that respect...

I guess what I'm saying is that Zoe should be blamed more for overreacting, and then not backing off when it became clear that there was no "consensus" for what she was doing, rather than for believing in a false ideology shared by who knows how many other WP'ers - maybe thousands.

[gomi]

I suggest that, indeed a good "pillorying" may serve to focus the attention ...

All your points are valid, of course... But is there no risk of the opposite effect, namely people thinking they've fixed the problem simply by punishing User:Zoe ... ?

Zoe certainly isn't the only one with these strange and mystifying beliefs regarding Wikipedia's relationship with the law and the outside world in general. ... it may be unrealistic to think they're ever going to reform themselves in that respect...

You are, of course, completely right. Allowing WP a scapegoat lets it, as an entity, off too easily. However, what seems to happen most of the time is that no one is blamed at all. The AN/I discussion of this has been capped off, and is now in the process of being swept under the rug.

Probably the only thing that will cause change is the ever-increasing frequency of these and similar events. When Wikipedia moves from the occasional crisis to a never-ending firefight, then things will change, though not neccesarily for the better.

[Lir]

I guess what I'm saying is that Zoe should be blamed more for overreacting, and then not backing off when it became clear that there was no "consensus" for what she was doing

Its sick how much theoretical emphasis they put on the idea of "consensus", when in practice they have no desire to seek consensus.

[Jonny Cache]

I guess what I'm saying is that Zoe should be blamed more for overreacting, and then not backing off when it became clear that there was no "consensus" for what she was doing

It's sick how much theoretical emphasis they put on the idea of "consensus", when in practice they have no desire to seek consensus.

The word consensus is just one of many that Wikipedian True Believers have apparently never bothered to look up in a real dictionary, and it no longer has any determinate meaning in Wikipedian practice. This is all apart from the fact that all three of the main content policies say, or used to say, that consensus cannot trump the application of these overarching principles. In practice, editors ignore these principles at will in favor of a spot "consensus", very often consisting of a special interest, single issue, brown sock group.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 29th January 2007, 5:52am

[a view from the hive]

Argh, all this does is just create more of a ruckus and make waste some diskspace w/ the rollback button. Too bad it wasn't something obvious like "the number of elephants has tripled in the last 6 months" - the last incident of "encouraged vandalism" and admins were able to protect the pages in time.

[LamontStormstar]

Can someone find the diff where Jimbo encourages vandalizism. I searched all the links given and I looked at Jimbo's contribs and couldn't find it.

[taiwopanfob]

Well, sorry, but Jimbo's wrong on this one, and if people's only answer is to stick knives in Zoe for trying to do what she thought was right, then I'm done with WP.

Why? Wales et al (hereafter, "the cabal") are using the usual techniques to transfer your allegiance from the content to _them_. There is a difference between country and government. If instead you just realize that the cabal are, by and large, a bunch of morons playing parts in a long, complicated, tedious soap opera (no soap yet, but maybe soon!) it becomes very simple to just switch your priorities back to the content and simply point and laugh at the Glorious Ruler and His Army of Sycophants (GRAHOS). This is essentially why wikipediareview exists, so your presence here should make the transition even easier.

[Jonny Cache]

Well, sorry, but Jimbo's wrong on this one, and if people's only answer is to stick knives in Zoe for trying to do what she thought was right, then I'm done with WP.

Why? Wales et al (hereafter, "the cabal") are using the usual techniques to transfer your allegiance from the content to them. There is a difference between country and government. If instead you just realize that the cabal are, by and large, a bunch of morons playing parts in a long, complicated, tedious soap opera (no soap yet, but maybe soon!) it becomes very simple to just switch your priorities back to the content and simply point and laugh at the Glorious Ruler and His Army of Sycophants (GRAHAOS). This is essentially why wikipediareview exists, so your presence here should make the transition even easier.

SOAP = Sum Of Asinine Pretension

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 29th January 2007, 3:22pm

[Robert Roberts]

Zoe seems to be gone - I've just looked at her page and people are asking her to come back.

[Somey]

Zoe seems to be gone - I've just looked at her page and people are asking her to come back.

Don't worry, she'll be back... sometimes we set up a little "pool" on how long it takes them to come back. In this case I'm pretty sure it'll be within 48 hours.

Also, welcome to the forum, Mr. Roberts!

[Robert Roberts]

Hi - just in case anyone is wondering - I have a current ID so I'd perfer not to identify myself via it .

In regards to Zoe - yeah I was wondering if it was one of those "show me how you love me" things.

[Robert Roberts]

This MONGO chap is a nice guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104121576

"worthless articles" - yeah because all of those anons know all of the rules around wikipedia and set out to do something worthless...

[gomi]

Can someone find the diff where Jimbo encourages vandalizism. I searched all the links given and I looked at Jimbo's contribs and couldn't find it.

Jimbo's statement is here, as later augmented with this. The "leave it alone" was angrily denounced by Zoe as tantamount to allowing vandalism here, and also with this testy remark on Jimbo's talk page, and by making this user page change.

I didn't write the thread title, and I'm not a big fan of Jimbo, but in cases like these, with a significant potential for blowback against Wikipedia's interests, Jimbo fairly uniformly chooses expedience over the more Puritan ("thou hast transgressed and must be punished!") leanings of his minions.

[Somey]

We should probably change the title to something like "Zoe isn't happy," or if we'd all prefer something more conservative, "Zoe vs. the Professor"...

I thought about "Zoe vs. the Volcano" or "G.I. Zoe," but I was worried people would think I was just trying to be clever.

[Jonny Cache]

We should probably change the title to something like "Zoe isn't happy," or if we'd all prefer something more conservative, "Zoe vs. the Professor"...

I thought about "Zoe vs. the Volcano" or "G.I. Zoe," but I was worried people would think I was just trying to be clever.

Howzabout The Knights That Say "NIU" ?

Or maybe Flamey and Zoe ?

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 29th January 2007, 6:24pm

[JohnA]

You know, if I wanted to show that Wikipedia is unreliable, I could find THOUSANDS of ways to do it besides give out an assignment to conduct ongoing vandalism to a class of students.

The reply from the NIU Ethics Officer is just a pile of shit.

Wikipedia is a Blog. The word vandalism, as used internal to this Blog, has no determinate meaning to outsiders. As far as external observers can tell, Wikipedia users are constantly vandalizing the subject matters to which many of them have dedicated their lives and sacred honors. By and large, Wikipedia website "administrators" are engaged in a form of anti-education that is warping the minds of naive people about the very nature of knowledge, and there is no reason that real educators should have to respect what goes on there.

The word encyclopedia, as used internal to the Wikipedia Blog, vandalizes the very meaning of the word. Wikipedia has not earned the right to appropriate this word because Wikipedia adamantly refuses to do the things that it would take to earn anybody else's respect.

People of good will and intelligence granted the Wikipedia experiment the initial benefit of the doubt. In time they began to warn the Wikipedia populace about the collapse of credibility that it was headed for. But all that people of good will and intelligence got for their troubles was a constant stream of spit in their faces.

Jonny

Bravo! Jonny has moments of lucidity that are worth waiting for.

[LamontStormstar]

Jimbo said:

'''Note from Jimbo:''' Wow, this is just wildly inappropriate. I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then. I think Zoe's pursuit of this in this way is wildly inappropriate and should cease immediately, and that she should apologize to him for it. I very much do not approve of this kind of random hostility from Wikipedia editors.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I talked to him, he apologized, he said he would not do it again. It was very simple. Many instructors have made the same error. Nothing to see, really.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How does this show support of vandalism? He just says he resolved the issue and the vandalism would stop.

It appears Zoe acted irrationally.

[gomi]

How does this show support of vandalism?

I didn't say it did. Zoe and the original poster said so. I think the totality of this thread makes the overall issue clear. Other than "It appears Zoe acted irrationally", (with which I agree) do you have a point?