Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
57 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Austin Hair
Hi guys,

After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
 Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.

Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
moderation for the indefinite future.

Austin

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Virgilio A. P. Machado
I strongly disagree with both decisions.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
(Vapmachado)


At 01:05 18-10-2010, you wrote:

>Hi guys,
>
>After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
>enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
>  Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.
>
>Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
>moderation for the indefinite future.
>
>Austin


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Marc Riddell
In reply to this post by Austin Hair
on 10/17/10 8:05 PM, Austin Hair at [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
> enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
> Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.
>
> Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
> moderation for the indefinite future.
>
Why? Would you like to share your reasoning with the rest of us? When
someone else decides that what another person has written isn't suitable for
someone else's eyes - what else do you call it but censorship. The only
reason words are ever banned is out of fear of the consequence of their use.
Has either of these persons threatened anyone with harm? As I understand
this Forum, it is for discussing all issues related to the Foundation that
controls the Project we are all working on. The Community should be able to
openly discuss all of the laundry that belongs to it - both clean and dirty.
This way, we may not always like what we hear, but we can always trust that
we are hearing it all.

Marc Riddell


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Andreas Kolbe
In reply to this post by Virgilio A. P. Machado
--- On Mon, 18/10/10, Virgilio A. P. Machado <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I strongly disagree with both
> decisions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
> (Vapmachado)
 

While I appreciate the situation the moderators are in, I'm afraid I disagree too -- in particular in Peter's case, whose contributions generally seem intelligent and constructive.

Greg's contributions may be provocative, but a culture that is able to tolerate provocation and dissent without losing its composure is healthier than one that cannot. That includes being able to deal with the occasional searching question from someone like Greg.

I realise the moderators' aim is to prevent disruption. And I am aware that back-and-forth discussions about putting a member in an online discussion group on moderation are one of the most tedious and unproductive types of discussions to have. It's something that can make moderating an online discussion group a truly invidious task, making the most well-meaning moderator feel their job is not appreciated.

That is not so.

But I feel compelled to point out that falling prey to groupthink* is often a more hazardous fate for a group than suffering disruption.

Andreas

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

> At 01:05 18-10-2010, you wrote:
> >Hi guys,
> >
> >After extensive discussion among the list
> administrators, we've
> >enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a
> mailing list member.
> >  Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on
> Foundation-l.
> >
> >Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and
> will remain on
> >moderation for the indefinite future.
> >
> >Austin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


     

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Austin Hair
Hoi,
I certainly welcome Mr Kohs absence from this list. His brinkmanship is well
known, he is not welcome on two projects as well and he boasted recently
that there are still projects open to him. Getting rid of a troll is imho
beneficial to the atmosphere.

Mr Damian uses hyperbole to the extend that you would believe there is
nothing good to be found in Wikipedia. His posture as a superior mind has
become increasingly boring. I hope he will consider his options and decide
to tone down this rhetoric. This might make him relevant again I hope. If
not tough.

So I am one to welcome the move by the list administrators and I am happy to
support their action.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 18 October 2010 02:05, Austin Hair <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
> enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
>  Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.
>
> Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
> moderation for the indefinite future.
>
> Austin
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Fred Bauder-2
This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.
Nothing constructive or helpful is likely to be added by thekohster, and
if Peter contributes something interesting and helpful it can be
approved.

Fred

> Hoi,
> I certainly welcome Mr Kohs absence from this list. His brinkmanship is
> well
> known, he is not welcome on two projects as well and he boasted recently
> that there are still projects open to him. Getting rid of a troll is imho
> beneficial to the atmosphere.
>
> Mr Damian uses hyperbole to the extend that you would believe there is
> nothing good to be found in Wikipedia. His posture as a superior mind has
> become increasingly boring. I hope he will consider his options and
> decide
> to tone down this rhetoric. This might make him relevant again I hope. If
> not tough.
>
> So I am one to welcome the move by the list administrators and I am happy
> to
> support their action.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 18 October 2010 02:05, Austin Hair <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
>> enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
>>  Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.
>>
>> Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
>> moderation for the indefinite future.
>>
>> Austin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

MZMcBride-2
Fred Bauder wrote:
> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.

Please don't stupidly spout off about the purpose of this list. Or if you
insist on doing so, at least have the decency to be accurate. There is
absolutely no issue with dissent on this list (or on any Wikimedia mailing
list). Thoughtful critics and criticism should always be welcome. The view
you're putting forward is simply and unequivocally wrong.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Austin Hair




----- Original Message ----
From: Austin Hair <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sun, October 17, 2010 7:05:18 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Hi guys,

After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.

Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
moderation for the indefinite future.

Austin


You guys really need to get out of the echo chamber.  You don't even bother to
try and articulate what you are trying to accomplish with moderation any more.  
Obviously everyone involved has written Greg Kohs off as inherently evil, so I
won't waste my time with nuance on that subject.   But you might want to
actually define your goalposts to prevent the predictable dramafest that will
occur in the near future when someone who has not been labeled as evil begins
grappling with them.  The foundation-l forum obviously has a broader population
than wherever the adminstrators extensively discuss these things and none are
mind readers.

Birgitte SB



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Robert S. Horning
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On 10/17/2010 11:01 PM, MZMcBride wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>    
>> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
>> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.
>>      
> Please don't stupidly spout off about the purpose of this list. Or if you
> insist on doing so, at least have the decency to be accurate. There is
> absolutely no issue with dissent on this list (or on any Wikimedia mailing
> list). Thoughtful critics and criticism should always be welcome. The view
> you're putting forward is simply and unequivocally wrong.
>
> MZMcBride
>    
While I think this reply could have been a bit more tactful, the
sentient is well founded:  This list includes a fair bit of dissent and
controversy over the role of the Foundation in regards to the operations
of the various Wikimedia projects.... controversy that in some cases
I've started in the past in various capacities.  *I* have offered
dissenting viewpoints on several key things in the past, so if it is
those who are actively criticizing the foundation or the actions of
"project leaders", perhaps I ought to be the next one banned from this list?

This is a years (nearly a decade?) old mailing list with a rich and
varied history and a whole lot of participants.  The degree of
toleration for dissent can and ought to be a central aspect to the
governance of these projects, and in fact is one of the reasons why I
still participate in one degree or another on the various projects.  
Indeed it is when intolerance has happened is when I've seen various
projects or sub-projects start to die.

On occasion there might be somebody engaging in actions that are simply
so over the top that it is necessary to take some action.  Without
supporting or being critical of the current action, to which I don't
feel I have enough information to pass judgment, I certainly hope any
such action to block or restrict another person is something done with a
sober mind and well thought through before the action is taken.  I
remember when this was completely unmoderated to a degree that would not
be tolerated today simply because of spam and pure junk.  If it becomes
merely a pruning exercise to make more like minded people, you can count
me out.  Until then, at least know that there are a great many reasons
why people read and contribute to this list.

-- Robert Horning
____________________________________________________________
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4cbbdc684885f337a37st05vuc

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

phoebe ayers-3
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Robert S. Horning
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/17/2010 11:01 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
>>> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.
>>>
>> Please don't stupidly spout off about the purpose of this list. Or if you
>> insist on doing so, at least have the decency to be accurate. There is
>> absolutely no issue with dissent on this list (or on any Wikimedia mailing
>> list). Thoughtful critics and criticism should always be welcome. The view
>> you're putting forward is simply and unequivocally wrong.
>>
>> MZMcBride
>>
> While I think this reply could have been a bit more tactful, the
> sentient is well founded:  This list includes a fair bit of dissent and
> controversy over the role of the Foundation in regards to the operations
> of the various Wikimedia projects.... controversy that in some cases
> I've started in the past in various capacities.  *I* have offered
> dissenting viewpoints on several key things in the past, so if it is
> those who are actively criticizing the foundation or the actions of
> "project leaders", perhaps I ought to be the next one banned from this list?

I cannot speak for the list administrators. But criticism, especially
thoughtful criticism, is of course both welcome and healthy in general
in our projects, and personally I would love to see more nuanced and
thoughtful criticism as the basis of many more conversations about
where the Foundation and projects should go.

But I do note that Austin didn't specify the reasons that Kohs was
banned, so I don't think that it's particularly useful to raise
fearful scenarios. In the last few years that I have been actively
participating in Foundation-l, I've found it quite lenient not only
towards critics but also towards troublesome posters, even trolls. So
I doubt that Kohs' critical views towards the projects contributed to
his banning; there are plenty of other ways that someone can become
unwelcome in a community, including harassment of other members of
that community. I don't know what the specific situation in this case
was that triggered this action at this time, but I trust our list
administrators to make thoughtful decisions based on a long history.

regards,
Phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Nathan Awrich
If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was
banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?

Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.
> Nothing constructive or helpful is likely to be added by thekohster

Wow, I don't know.  On the one hand, you're right, the list should be
for people who support the project (*).  On the other hand, this ban
appears to possibly be in retaliation for Greg's whistleblowing with
regard to the Q2 Consulting contract, and it seems to me that that
action *was* constructive, in that it points out the lack of an
important policy, even if it ultimately turns out that no actual
wrongdoing took place.

Maybe it was the right decision (**), but even so, the timing was
horrible (***).

(*) Including those who support the project but believe that major
changes ought to be made.

(**) I'm not sure if Greg falls into "those who support the project
but believe that major changes ought to be made" or not.

(***) See http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
, which was published after the ban was announced, but which describes
an IRC conversation which took place before the ban was announced.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Fred Bauder-2
On reflection, I guess I (I, not the Foundation), envision our public
mailing lists as being for all who are involved and interested, casually
or intensely, as well as for observers are simply monitoring our on-going
discussions, and who may, from time to time, wish to comment or initiate
topics.

The difficulty arises with trollish and disruptive behavior and bad faith
grading into malice. With respect to malice, keep in mind that a person
engaged in a campaign intending to harm may have and use substantive
issues for that purpose.

Bottom line, it's a judgment call, and not easily done, or defended.

Fred


> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
>> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated
>> ways.
>> Nothing constructive or helpful is likely to be added by thekohster
>
> Wow, I don't know.  On the one hand, you're right, the list should be
> for people who support the project (*).  On the other hand, this ban
> appears to possibly be in retaliation for Greg's whistleblowing with
> regard to the Q2 Consulting contract, and it seems to me that that
> action *was* constructive, in that it points out the lack of an
> important policy, even if it ultimately turns out that no actual
> wrongdoing took place.
>
> Maybe it was the right decision (**), but even so, the timing was
> horrible (***).
>
> (*) Including those who support the project but believe that major
> changes ought to be made.
>
> (**) I'm not sure if Greg falls into "those who support the project
> but believe that major changes ought to be made" or not.
>
> (***) See
> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
> , which was published after the ban was announced, but which describes
> an IRC conversation which took place before the ban was announced.
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Austin Hair
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was
> banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?

Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that he's been on moderation
for the better part of the past year—namely, that he was completely
unable to keep his contributions civil, and caused more flamewars than
constructive discussion.

Peter Damian is only on moderation, and we'll follow our usual policy
of letting through anything that could be considered even marginally
acceptable.  We really are very liberal about this—otherwise you
wouldn't have heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six months.

I'm sure that my saying this won't convince anyone who's currently
defending him, but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs was
retaliatory.  I'll also (not for the first time) remind everyone that
neither the Wikimedia Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter
or other organizational body has any say in the administration of this
list.

I hope that clears up all of the questions asked in this thread so far.

Regards,

Austin

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Birgitte_sb





________________________________
From: Austin Hair <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 12:35:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was
> banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?

Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that he's been on moderation
for the better part of the past year—namely, that he was completely
unable to keep his contributions civil, and caused more flamewars than
constructive discussion.

Peter Damian is only on moderation, and we'll follow our usual policy
of letting through anything that could be considered even marginally
acceptable.  We really are very liberal about this—otherwise you
wouldn't have heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six months.

I'm sure that my saying this won't convince anyone who's currently
defending him, but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs was
retaliatory.  I'll also (not for the first time) remind everyone that
neither the Wikimedia Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter
or other organizational body has any say in the administration of this
list.

I hope that clears up all of the questions asked in this thread so far.


It is not about defending anyone but about the fact that the "I know bannable
when I see it"  theory of moderation is unconstructive and leads to dramafests.  
The next ban is the one that will likely cause a real flame war.  


I suspect *more* people would be on moderation if any sort of objective criteria
were being used.  The lack of explanation over this bothers me so much because I
suspect that you *can't* explain it.  It seems to be the sort of gut-shot that
hasn't been thought through.  Moderate more people based on real criteria,
rather than how you feel about them.

Birgitte SB


     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Virgilio A. P. Machado
Brigitte,

I agree with you. You raised some very good points.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


At 03:47 20-10-2010, you wrote:

>________________________________ From: Austin
>Hair <[hidden email]> To: Wikimedia Foundation
>Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 12:35:07 PM Subject:
>Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian On
>Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan
><[hidden email]> wrote: > If it pleases the
>moderators, might we know on what basis Greg
>was > banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?
>Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that
>he's been on moderation for the better part of
>the past year—namely, that he was completely
>unable tto keep his contributions civil, and
>caused more flamewars than constructive
>discussion. Peter Damian is only on moderation,
>and we'll follow our usual policy of letting
>through anything that could be considered even
>marginally acceptable.  We really are very
>liberal about this—otheerwise you wouldn't have
>heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six
>months. I'm sure that my saying this won't
>convince anyone who's currently defending him,
>but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs
>was retaliatory.  I'll also (not for the first
>time) remind everyone that neither the Wikimedia
>Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter
>or other organizational body has any say in the
>administration of this list. I hope that clears
>up all of the questions asked in this thread so
>far. It is not about defending anyone but about
>the fact that the "I know bannable when I see
>it"  theory of moderation is unconstructive and
>leads to dramafests.  The next ban is the one
>that will likely cause a real flame war.  I
>suspect *more* people would be on moderation if
>any sort of objective criteria were being
>used.  The lack of explanation over this bothers
>me so much because I suspect that you *can't*
>explain it.  It seems to be the sort of gut-shot
>that hasn't been thought through.  Moderate more
>people based on real criteria, rather than how
>you feel about them. Birgitte
>SB
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>[hidden email] Unsubscribe:
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Mike DuPont
Hello,

From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.

People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
because it is uncomfortable.

Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
fair to the people involved.

Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
list.

http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts

Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.

The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
any merit in what they say.

This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed ones.

Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
Spam etc, lets call that evil content.

But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
notable.

We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.

Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
and gone forever without proper process or review.

In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.

Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
television show, is that what you really want?

I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
the project of important information because they are not able to get
started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
chance to be heard.

We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.

thanks,
mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Marc Riddell
In reply to this post by Austin Hair
Let's see what we've got here:

A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god; an "Executive Director"
who answers only to this "Board"; a group of "Moderators" who claim (with a
straight face) that they are "independent", but whose "moderations" are
clearly designed to keep the first two in a favorable light; and, dead last,
you have the people who, not so ironically, create the substance of the
thing that makes the first three possible. This setup sounds achingly
familiar. And, like all similar setups throughout history, is set up to
fail.

Marc Riddell

on 10/20/10 12:44 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at [hidden email] wrote:

> Brigitte,
>
> I agree with you. You raised some very good points.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
>
>
> At 03:47 20-10-2010, you wrote:
>> ________________________________ From: Austin
>> Hair <[hidden email]> To: Wikimedia Foundation
>> Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 12:35:07 PM Subject:
>> Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian On
>> Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan
>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > If it pleases the
>> moderators, might we know on what basis Greg
>> was > banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?
>> Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that
>> he's been on moderation for the better part of
>> the past year—namely, that he was completely
>> unable tto keep his contributions civil, and
>> caused more flamewars than constructive
>> discussion. Peter Damian is only on moderation,
>> and we'll follow our usual policy of letting
>> through anything that could be considered even
>> marginally acceptable.  We really are very
>> liberal about this—otheerwise you wouldn't have
>> heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six
>> months. I'm sure that my saying this won't
>> convince anyone who's currently defending him,
>> but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs
>> was retaliatory.  I'll also (not for the first
>> time) remind everyone that neither the Wikimedia
>> Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter
>> or other organizational body has any say in the
>> administration of this list. I hope that clears
>> up all of the questions asked in this thread so
>> far. It is not about defending anyone but about
>> the fact that the "I know bannable when I see
>> it"  theory of moderation is unconstructive and
>> leads to dramafests.  The next ban is the one
>> that will likely cause a real flame war.  I
>> suspect *more* people would be on moderation if
>> any sort of objective criteria were being
>> used.  The lack of explanation over this bothers
>> me so much because I suspect that you *can't*
>> explain it.  It seems to be the sort of gut-shot
>> that hasn't been thought through.  Moderate more
>> people based on real criteria, rather than how
>> you feel about them. Birgitte
>> SB
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email] Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

metasj
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Marc Riddell
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> As I understand this Forum, it is for discussing all issues related to the Foundation
> that controls the Project we are all working on. The Community should be able to
> openly discuss all of the laundry that belongs to it - both clean and dirty.

It should, and regularly does...


Robert Horning writes:

> This is a years (nearly a decade?) old mailing list with a rich and
> varied history and a whole lot of participants.  The degree of
> toleration for dissent can and ought to be a central aspect to the
> governance of these projects, and in fact is one of the reasons why I
> still participate in one degree or another on the various projects.

Nearly a decade!  Yes, this is also one of the reasons I am proud to
be a wikimedian.  So I assume that moderation here is not from
intolerance of dissent.  Discussions or dissent about contracts, jobs
and any Foundation policies are historically on-topic.

SJ

--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Guillaume Paumier-3
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
Hi,

I don't want to go further off-topic, but I'd like to make a small
correction:

Le mercredi 20 octobre 2010 à 08:58 -0400, Marc Riddell a écrit :
> Let's see what we've got here:
>
> A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god

No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.

--
Guillaume Paumier


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123