On <s>Friday</s> Thursday [[Lisa Daniels]] reported a news piece on NBC news discussing the recent (?) controversy about the reliability of wikipedia and colleges banning its use as a primary source (see [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/ MSNBC report] and [http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=c9f78c26-7c20-4a9b-94f8-2978b33fad16&f=00&fg=copy Video Link]). As part of the report, Lisa Daniels (using account [[User:LisaDaniels]]) edited/vandalized her own page on wikipedia on air to demonstrate the ease with which ''anyone'' can edit this encyclopedia (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Daniels&diff=116357238&oldid=109276360 edit]). <br>
Soon after the news aired admin [[User:Prodego|Prodego]] blocked the user LisaDaniels account, fearing that it may be used by an impersonator of the reporter. He promptly undid the block after he was satisfied that this was not the case (see discussion [[User_talk:Prodego#Thanks|here]] and [[User_talk:Abecedare#User:LisaDaniels|here]]). <br>
However since then, another admin and very experienced editor [[User:Alphachimp|Alphachimp]] has blocked the user as a "vandalism only" account with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LisaDaniels&diff=117534702&oldid=117346981 this message], and is unwilling to undo it (see discussion [[User_talk:Alphachimp#User:LisaDaniels|here]]). I want to invite Jimbo and the larger community to comment on the appropriateness of such action. My reasons for objecting to the block are as follows:
* [[User:LisaDaniels]]'s first edit was reverted within a minute of being made and she made no attempt to vandalize the page again. Instead her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Daniels&diff=prev&oldid=116360625 second edit] was aimed at improving the page.
* The user's first edit was a violation of [[WP:POINT]] and she should have been (gently) warned for this. However blocking her indefinitely seems to be a violation of [[WP:BITE]], [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:BLOCK]] (specifically, ''"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure."'' and ''"Vandalism — Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism. Dynamic IPs: up to 24 hours. Range blocks: about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and 24 at most, to avoid collateral damage. User accounts with persistent violations may be blocked indefinitely."'')
* There is no credible fear IMO (I agree that this is subjective) that a public figure like Lisa Daniels will use a account under her own real name to vandalise wikipedia willy-nilly, if for no other reason, out of fear of her activities being reported to NBC or general media watchdogs. Subjectivity aside, at least there is no evidence of this till date.
If the above reasons were all I had, I would have posted this message on the [[WP:ANI]] notice board and not here. However I think this case touches upon larger questions of how wikipedia reacts to neutral/critical reporting in media and how mainstream media, in turn, will view the reaction.
* As discussed [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#NBC_News |earlier on this page]] and on [[Talk:Lisa Daniels]], many editors take issues with the balance of the news item and the reporter's choice of vandalizing a page in order to illustrate a point. Note though, that unlike Colbert and the-instructor-whose-name-I-don't-recall, Daniels did not encourage viewer's to vandalize wikipedia articles; only pointed out the ease with which they can be edited. Of course, this attention, would attract both vandals and genuinely interested editors to the projects.
* I don't think blocking or rebuking a user who (relatively non-disruptively) reports on shortcomings of the wikipedia model is appropriate, ''even if one disagrees with the criticism''. To draw another, potentially flawed, analogy, it is akin to disinviting a professor to a conference for the 'sin' of exposing a flaw in a widely used cryptographic algorithm that the public (mistakenly) relies on. I would presume that such a security-through-obscurity approach would be an anathema to a open/free project like wikipedia and that it would instead aim to encourage (constructive) critics and neutral reporters to join in the conversation rather than ban them from it.
* Looking from the external non-wiki perspective, the action of blocking LisaDaniels will be perceived as a retaliation for her reporting and that cannot be good for the project or its public image. I can imagine Jimbo being asked why a anonymous editor (such as, say, {{User|151.196.183.248}}) receives multiple warnings before being blocked for a short period of time; while a well known reporter is blocked indefinitely, without warning, for a single edit made under hear real ID on national television to educate viewers.
I invite your views on the above points. I hope it is clear that I am not attempting to defend reporter Lisa Daniels original actions (I myself am conflicted about that) or even complaining specifically against Alphachimp (since I believe he acted out of sincere conviction, and his views are probably shared by many others). My aim is get your feedback on how you believe wikipedia should react against mainstream critical media coverage ''and the concerned reporters''. Thanks. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Can it get even more ridiculous than it is ???

Wow. Reactions like this, above, are precisely why administrators are starting to hate volunteering to help Wikipedia. I simply blocked an account that was created to vandalize, and I'm threatened with desysopping? Whatever. You're welcome to continue debating it ad nauseum on this page, my talk page, or any other page. I'll be busy blocking vandals and reverting their vandalism -- helping the encyclopedia. You guys should try it too.

...or does it help more to point out when administrators do things that significantly embarrass the entire website?

...And you have no indication that you find anything wrong with this. Even now. Instead, just the same stuff we got from Essjay about volunteering and being criticized for all the good work you do. Save it. You know how I knew Essjay had gone round the bend, BTW? He matter-of-factly threatened to desysop a sysop who defied him in removing a "nominations open" tag from her own userpage. That was when I knew the man was power-mad. I knew it before Brad and Jimbo and Angela and whoever they are, at Wikia, knew it (I'm not even certain they know it now). But I knew it, by watching how he USED his power. And by his complete refusal to come to grips with the idea that stomping on a newbie with an indefinite block, for a unwarned marginal problem (something Essjay did to me, also) might be a symptom of a problem in the admin himself. SBHarris 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the block was lifted about 20 minutes after this appeared, but even more interesting is Alphachimp's response:

So that brings up two important questions, beyond the obvious and predictable refusal to apologize that's the hallmark of the Wikipedia administrator.

1. Are administrators, in fact, starting to hate volunteering to help Wikipedia?

2. Should those guys try blocking vandals and reverting their vandalism too? I don't believe either User:Abecedare or User:SBHarris (the other guy arguing the pro-sanity side, and my personal favorite WP user) are admins, so they can't actually block the vandals. But given that nobody wants to actually produce and/or improve original content, does it "help the encyclopedia" more to revert vandalism, or does it help more to point out when administrators do things that significantly embarrass the entire website?

I suspect that SBHarris is not long for Wikipedia.

1. Are administrators, in fact, starting to hate volunteering to help Wikipedia?

The subject of this article has demonstrated a proven unwillingness to respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines with respect to treatment of biographical articles by the subject. Please do not attempt to recreate this article without first obtaining clearance from an administrator.

And what if Daniel Brandt does it?