One alternative

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
96 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

One alternative

Larry Sanger
[Moderators: if you don't wish to forward this post, I'll understand.
If you do, thanks in advance.  --Larry Sanger]

All,

I saw this unfortunate article

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/

and I felt inspired to reach out to the Wikipedia community and invite
those of you who are seriously disaffected to give the Citizendium
(http://www.citizendium.org/) another look.  In case you took seriously
a certain article about us in the Wikipedia Signpost last summer, let's
just say that wishful reports of our demise were greatly exaggerated.
Since then, we've nearly doubled our number of articles and our
activity; our growth has been accerating, and recently, we've had a
great growth spurt.  Obviously, we're still small, but we've got an
excellent opportunity to replicate Wikipedia-style growth.

I've never actually extended an invitation to Wikipedians before.  I've
always felt that Wikipedia and the Citizendium naturally attract
different constituencies, and that that's a positive thing.  I have
never wanted to appear to be competing with Wikipedia for people.  I
just didn't think that's necessary--and I still don't.

But, especially to those people who are seriously disappointed with the
management of the Wikipedia community, I feel it's appropriate and
important that I say: we all (humanity) might be able to do better than
the Wikipedia model of production and governance.  Maybe, for some of
you, it's time to explore the Citizendium model.

I know I'm going to make a lot of people angry or disappointed by my
saying this here, in the lion's den, so to speak.  (Does it help that I
started this list?  I doubt it. :-) )  I'm sure there will be no
shortage of hostile response.  But bear in mind, I am reaching out only
to people who are seriously disappointed with Wikipedia or its
management.  I think this is within the properly critical spirit of the
open source/free culture movement.  After all, I am *not* trying to
undermine Wikipedia, which I hope will always exist as a popular source
of information.  (I've always said that.)  I'm merely trying to build
*another* source of information.  I hope that those who are
contemplating exiting Wikipedia will consider joining the Citizendium.

If you want to know how (we think) we're different, see this page:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:We_aren't_Wikipedia

The present "scandal" is over the community and governance.  So what's
special or interesting about the Citizendium community and governance?
Here's a summary.

The community as a whole is by and large a mature and pleasant place to
work.  But it's still an open wiki.

We are ramping up an open, online representative republic.  (We're still
drafting our rules!)  Among other things, this means we've got an
Editorial Council (a "legislative"), a Constabulary (a "police force"),
an Executive Committee (an "executive"), and we will soon be adding an
independent judiciary.  These community components are rule-governed and
being established with the well-known challenges of Wikipedia's
community in mind.

We take "the rule of law" seriously.  "Ignore all rules," which I
originally proposed for Wikipedia as a sort of joke back in the spring
of 2001, isn't recommended.  Boldness and not caring too much if you
make beginner mistakes are strongly recommended.  (But that was the
original spirit of "ignore all rules," in case you didn't know.)

We require that contributors agree with a Statement of Fundamental
Policies.  (And, soon, a Citizendium Charter.)  No endless arguing about
our fundamental policies: we are all committed to them up front.  We
still argue about stuff that really matters.  We take the notion of
"cyber-citizenship" seriously.

We require real names.  We actually check that there is someone with a
particular (real) name and we try to match this name up with an e-mail
address.  Our methods of doing this are very fallible, but so far they
seem to have worked just fine.  So sockpuppetry, while in principle
still possible, becomes much, much more difficult.  (I'm not aware of
our having any sockpuppet contributors on CZ.)

On the issue in question--should there be a "secret cabal" of people to
deal with sockpuppets?--well, it's interesting.  On the one hand, we
don't have a sockpuppet problem to speak of, because we require real
names.  On the other hand, we do have a "Constabulary," and occasionally
they deal with difficult cases, and indeed privately, but the constables
are bound by certain rules.  Among the rules are the right to appeal to
a fully independent body.  For example, recently one editor (a very kind
University of Edinburgh professor who served in the same appeal function
that we'll soon formalize with the Judicial Board) "heard" an appeal and
reversed my decision to ban someone.  This is fine with me and I am glad
to be able to demonstrate that I do *not* have the final say.  No single
individual should, in a republic.

The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine
cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule
of law.  But, just as with closed police records, closed access is
sometimes necessary to protect contributor privacy and interests, and to
avoid libel issues needlessly.  If a person wishes us to make our
deliberations public, we will.  We regard it as their *right* as a
citizen.  This guarantee of rights, however, would be rather more
problematic if we weren't using real names.

In terms of management, to set a positive precedent, I plan to step down
as editor-in-chief and hand over the reins to someone else--within the
next year or two at most.  This will require that I do fundraising to
pay this person's salary, because I myself have been living strictly
from writing, speaking, and consulting fees.  I will at that time no
longer play *any* role, formal or informal, in the governance of the
Citizendium encyclopedia project.  (I will try to behave like the
traditional disinterested U.S. ex-president.)  It just seems obvious to
me that the leader of an allegedly democratic project should actually
*step aside* when he's handed over the reins of power.

Finally, we have a role for experts (only they are called our
"editors"), who can approve articles and make content decisions where
necessary, but who otherwise work shoulder-to-shoulder with everyone.
In fact, anyone can join (as an "author") and contribute, as long as
they are 13 or older, write good English and otherwise make a positive
contribution, agree with our fundamental principles, and help us
establish that the name/identity they claim is their own real name.

If you are motivated to try something different, join here:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount

Coincidentally, tomorrow (Wednesday) is a good day to join.  It's our
monthly Write-a-Thon (details linked from the front page).

By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to
announce our license before *too* much longer.  The announcement will be
accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet.  Please
don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's
a decent chance it will be compatible.

Also, by the way, I'm going to start up SharedKnowing (a new, "neutral"
mailing list) soon.  Some prominent Wikipedians are already subscribed.
Join here:

http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more

In conclusion, I'm hoping sincerely for the best outcome for everyone.
I hope Wikipedia can overcome its obviously difficult problems, and let
me add that I don't expect the Citizendium to be free of problems when
it's bigger, either.  They'll just be different, and I hope not so
fundamental.

My best to the Wikipedia community,
Larry Sanger
Wikipedia ex-co-founder ;-)

-----
Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D. | http://www.larrysanger.org/ 
Editor-in-Chief, Citizendium | http://www.citizendium.org/ 
[hidden email]


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Steve Bennett-8
Thanks for the post, Larry.

On 12/5/07, Larry Sanger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> shortage of hostile response.  But bear in mind, I am reaching out only
> to people who are seriously disappointed with Wikipedia or its
> management.  I think this is within the properly critical spirit of the

Personally, what I find disappointing is how much is made of these
incidents. There are a lot of drama queens here.

> In terms of management, to set a positive precedent, I plan to step down
> as editor-in-chief and hand over the reins to someone else--within the
> next year or two at most.  This will require that I do fundraising to

I wish we had an editor-in-chief. Anarchy works best with a dictator.
Since Jimbo became less hands-on, there has been a real leadership
vaccuum.

> pay this person's salary, because I myself have been living strictly
> from writing, speaking, and consulting fees.  I will at that time no
> longer play *any* role, formal or informal, in the governance of the
> Citizendium encyclopedia project.  (I will try to behave like the
> traditional disinterested U.S. ex-president.)  It just seems obvious to
> me that the leader of an allegedly democratic project should actually
> *step aside* when he's handed over the reins of power.

Nah. Forego the one person with the most experience, credibility and
understanding of the project?


> If you are motivated to try something different, join here:
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount

I'm not yet convinced that the world needs two community-edited
encyclopaedias. I wonder if someone will attempt a project to fuse
them. Maybe such a thing already exists: browse both in parallel,
every time you click a link it looks in both of them. Maybe we should
be considering interwiki links to CZ? The information would still be
separate, and we could still distinguish between the models used to
create it.

> By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to
> announce our license before *too* much longer.  The announcement will be
> accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet.  Please
> don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's
> a decent chance it will be compatible.

Ony a chance? Phooey.

> http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more

"Well-reasoned, polite discussion of the nature of online knowledge
production communities, with special but not exclusive focus on
community policy (production, governance, management) questions; "the
new politics of knowledge" broadly speaking."

What, is something wrong with wikien-l??

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

David Gerard-2
On 05/12/2007, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> every time you click a link it looks in both of them. Maybe we should
> be considering interwiki links to CZ? The information would still be
> separate, and we could still distinguish between the models used to
> create it.


Heh, that's an interesting idea.


> > By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to
> > announce our license before *too* much longer.  The announcement will be
> > accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet.  Please
> > don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's
> > a decent chance it will be compatible.

> Ony a chance? Phooey.


Larry has posted to citizendium-l saying that with the WMF/FSF/CC
announcement, that a future GFDL will be CC-by-sa compatible, that the
Citizendium licence *will not* be GFDL. (Which is IMO quite sensible,
'cos the GFDL sucks for massive-collaboration articles of a few pages,
for images, for motion pictures ...)


> > http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more

> "Well-reasoned, polite discussion of the nature of online knowledge
> production communities, with special but not exclusive focus on
> community policy (production, governance, management) questions; "the
> new politics of knowledge" broadly speaking."
> What, is something wrong with wikien-l??


*cough* It's an ideal to work towards.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Zoney
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On 05/12/2007, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/5/07, Larry Sanger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > shortage of hostile response.  But bear in mind, I am reaching out only
> > to people who are seriously disappointed with Wikipedia or its
> > management.  I think this is within the properly critical spirit of the
>
> Personally, what I find disappointing is how much is made of these
> incidents. There are a lot of drama queens here.
>
>
Actually, for all the "drama queens" there are, it does not seem logical to
assume that those who don't kick up a fuss don't care about the issues. The
vociferous individuals making most noise over issues should really only be
considered the tip of the iceberg, rather than an assumption be made that
because there are few who are so extreme in their reactions, that the
problems don't exist.

What I find a lot more disappointing than outraged inarticulate "drama
queens" who may indeed detract from the issues at hand, is the tendency for
other Wikipedia contributors to stick their head in the sand and pretend
everything is great, or at the very least, stick to the view that despite
any problems, the project and its most involved contributors are proceeding
in the right direction.

Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Alec Conroy-2
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
I just want to say, this thread has made me SO happy and confident
about the future of the world.  The issues of sockpuppets and cabals
look alot less scary whene we're reminded that Wikipedia is not the
only wany of organizing the world's information.

Wikinfo, I think, is a very very valuable thing that needed doing.
Who said NPOV has to be the best way of presenting the world's
information??  Surely, there's room in any good paper for both the
News section and the Editorial section.

Veriopedia, meanwhile, considered that maybe having any encyclopedia
where  "there is no deadline" aren't the best ways to do things--
maybe it would be better to have articles that are peer-reviewed prior
to publication, and frozen.   This would be horrible if it were the
ONLY 'peidia on the block, but combined with Wikipedia, I think
they're two great tastes that go great together.

Citzenpedia is another really interesting way of writing a project.
Suppose "Anyone can edit" isn't the best way to present the world's
information, and "Deferring to credentialed experts" is a better way
to do things.  This cuts out all the problems of outing, socks, and
vandalize, but of course, Citzenpedia would never be able to have the
breadth of Wiikipedia.

And then, there's our beloved wikipedia, which is the project I
personally am most attracted to.   Cabals and secret mailing lists
asside, there's only SO much damage that can any cabal could do.
NPOV,or attempted NPOV,  is the style of writing I most prefer, so
while I value Wikinfo's existence, it's not the ony I'm drawn to. I
feel stongly that "who you are"  shouldn't  affect  "how your work is
judged" so Citzenpedia doesn't appeal to me as much.   Veropedia, or
something like it, is going to be an essential partnert to wikipedia.
We need a *pedia where "If you see it in THE SUN it's so."--
Wikipedia can never achieve this goal, but we can be an ESSNENTIAL
half of the process.

On 12/5/07, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm not yet convinced that the world needs two community-edited
> encyclopaedias. I wonder if someone will attempt a project to fuse
> them. Maybe such a thing already exists: browse both in parallel,
> every time you click a link it looks in both of them. Maybe we should
> be considering interwiki links to CZ? The information would still be
> separate, and we could still distinguish between the models used to
> create it.

I can't TELL You how happy this would make me.  The copyright issues
would have to be resolved, so that people could free to copy text back
and forth, but I would LOVE to see Wikipedia just be one of a family
of wikis with close ties, where you could easily see if some other
project had a take on the same subject.   I'm convinced that this, or
something like it, is the next step-- Web 3.0 or whatever you want to
call it.  Where one could jump from "which editoral policies you want
to see" just as easily as one can currently jump from which language
you want to see.

And then, it takes the pressure off everybody.   I don't have to fight
the secret mailing lists quite as hard, because any "cabal" can only
affect one FLAVOR of the content.  The vandal-fighters don't have to
have quite as much pressure on them, beause the other flavors exist to
sort out only the "good portions" of wikipedia, discarding the
vandalism.  The badsites advocates wouldn't have to fight as hard
because they could make their own flavor that doesn't link to
badsites, and the anti-badsites advocates and censorship-phobics
wouldn't have to stress as much, because they could make their own
"uncensored" versions of articles where the information could still
get out.

I don't know if anyone is enthusiastic about Steve's idea fof
inter-wiki links as much as I am, but I think he's hit on the first
step to the next wonderful beautiful evolution of the wiki, andthat is
BEYOND wonderful.

Alec

Wikipedia would stilll be the one I'd be drawn to contribute to in
most cases, but

I'm split by Larry's email because the truth is, I on a personal
emotional level,  like the Wikipedia model best of any I've seen.  .

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

John Lee-14
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On Dec 5, 2007 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for the post, Larry.
>
> On 12/5/07, Larry Sanger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > In terms of management, to set a positive precedent, I plan to step down
> > as editor-in-chief and hand over the reins to someone else--within the
> > next year or two at most.  This will require that I do fundraising to
>
> I wish we had an editor-in-chief. Anarchy works best with a dictator.
> Since Jimbo became less hands-on, there has been a real leadership
> vaccuum.


Amen. I know at least part of this is "the grass is greener on the older
side" biased looking-back, but if you ask me, when Jimbo was more hands-on,
it was easier to build policy and reach consensus because someone was
driving things. If Jimbo said something a lot of us thought was wrong, that
galvanised opposition - and if he said something a lot of us were ok with,
then it went. (To take one example, I'm pretty sure that if we'd tried to
gather consensus for turning off anon page creation, as opposed to Jimbo
declaring/deciding, we wouldn't have found it.)

Johnleemk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Larry Sanger
Larry Sanger wrote:
> The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine
> cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule
> of law.

Seems pretty clear it's anathema on Wikipedia too, based on the general
reaction when this came to light. And the secret body in this case
didn't even have "authority" in any sort of official sense.

(This is of course assuming that you're drawing a distinction between
Wikipedia and Citizendium with that "committed to the rule of law" line
- Wikipedia does have some rather solid foundation policies under it
all, I'd hardly call it an anarchy.)

> By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to
> announce our license before *too* much longer.  The announcement will be
> accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet.  Please
> don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's
> a decent chance it will be compatible.

Frankly, it seems vaguely sleazy to me somehow to be soliciting
contributions when it still hasn't been decided what license they'll be
released under.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (258 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Dec 5, 2007 7:11 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 05/12/2007, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to
> > > announce our license before *too* much longer.  The announcement will be
> > > accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet.  Please
> > > don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's
> > > a decent chance it will be compatible.
>
> > Ony a chance? Phooey.
>
> Larry has posted to citizendium-l saying that with the WMF/FSF/CC
> announcement, that a future GFDL will be CC-by-sa compatible, that the
> Citizendium licence *will not* be GFDL. (Which is IMO quite sensible,
> 'cos the GFDL sucks for massive-collaboration articles of a few pages,
> for images, for motion pictures ...)
>
Yeah, but the other possibility is that the license will be CC-BY-NC-SA.

The very fact that Larry expects people to contribute their work to
Citizendium without even knowing what license is going to be used
strikes me as incredibly wrong.

Please don't contribute to Citizendium.  Not yet.  If you think you
might want to, drop a note to Larry telling him to pick a license
first.  And preferably, tell him not to pick a non-commercial only
license.

Anthony

>
> > > http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more
>
> > "Well-reasoned, polite discussion of the nature of online knowledge
> > production communities, with special but not exclusive focus on
> > community policy (production, governance, management) questions; "the
> > new politics of knowledge" broadly speaking."
> > What, is something wrong with wikien-l??
>
>
> *cough* It's an ideal to work towards.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

jayjg
In reply to this post by Bryan Derksen
On Dec 5, 2007 12:54 PM, Bryan Derksen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Larry Sanger wrote:
> > The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine
> > cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule
> > of law.
>
> Seems pretty clear it's anathema on Wikipedia too, based on the general
> reaction when this came to light. And the secret body in this case
> didn't even have "authority" in any sort of official sense.

And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases",
so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the
false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few
days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect
record of assuming bad faith still applies.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

geni
On 05/12/2007, jayjg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases",
> so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the
> false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few
> days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect
> record of assuming bad faith still applies.

If you are going to keep trying to play the plausible denyability card
it is to be expected that people are going to start opting for
collective responsibility.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

jayjg
On Dec 5, 2007 2:52 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 05/12/2007, jayjg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases",
> > so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the
> > false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few
> > days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect
> > record of assuming bad faith still applies.
>
> If you are going to keep trying to play the plausible denyability card
> it is to be expected that people are going to start opting for
> collective responsibility.

Ah, geni, is that the "collective responsibility" promoted by some
unnamed religious groups who have an unnamed "moral code" that counts
failure to read e-mails as a "moral failure" and who follow Asimov's
First Law of Robotics?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by jayjg
On Dec 5, 2007 2:41 PM, jayjg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Dec 5, 2007 12:54 PM, Bryan Derksen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Larry Sanger wrote:
> > > The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine
> > > cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule
> > > of law.
> >
> > Seems pretty clear it's anathema on Wikipedia too, based on the general
> > reaction when this came to light. And the secret body in this case
> > didn't even have "authority" in any sort of official sense.
>
> And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases",
> so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the
> false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few
> days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect
> record of assuming bad faith still applies.
>

Please, this is so boring.  You've said that there's nothing "secret"
about what happened (without adding anything new to your argument)
over and over again.  By now we've either bought it or we haven't.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

geni
In reply to this post by jayjg
On 05/12/2007, jayjg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ah, geni, is that the "collective responsibility" promoted by some
> unnamed religious groups who have an unnamed "moral code"

Judaism (you notice that with a couple of exceptions Yahweh tends to
smite collectively), versions of Christianity (what do you think
original sin is?). I understand that these groups and their beliefs
are fairly well known.


> and who follow Asimov's
> First Law of Robotics

Strawman.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

jayjg
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
On Dec 5, 2007 3:06 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Dec 5, 2007 2:41 PM, jayjg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 2007 12:54 PM, Bryan Derksen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Larry Sanger wrote:
> > > > The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine
> > > > cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule
> > > > of law.
> > >
> > > Seems pretty clear it's anathema on Wikipedia too, based on the general
> > > reaction when this came to light. And the secret body in this case
> > > didn't even have "authority" in any sort of official sense.
> >
> > And in this case there was no "secret body" that "determine[d] cases",
> > so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the
> > false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few
> > days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect
> > record of assuming bad faith still applies.
> >
>
> Please, this is so boring.  You've said that there's nothing "secret"
> about what happened (without adding anything new to your argument)
> over and over again.  By now we've either bought it or we haven't.

What's boring are continuing snide insinuations. Why don't Bryan and
anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to
co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy
and Slim are lying, if that's what they think, rather than using
weaselly innuendo to try to press their point? They should have the
courage of their convictions. I'm not prepared to see them use this
list as a vehicle for turning bad-faith imputations into accepted
fact. There are whole fora devoted to just that purpose, where banned
editors and related malcontents spew their venomous groupthink, and
where their views will be most welcome. This list is not one of them,
and if they keep doing it, I'll continue to call them on it.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:45:47 -0500, jayjg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why don't Bryan and
>anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to
>co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy
>and Slim are lying, if that's what they think

And Jimbo and Jayjg and Crum and David Gerard and FloNight and...
well, let's not go right through the subscribers list.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by Zoney
On 12/6/07, Zoney <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What I find a lot more disappointing than outraged inarticulate "drama
> queens" who may indeed detract from the issues at hand, is the tendency for
> other Wikipedia contributors to stick their head in the sand and pretend
> everything is great, or at the very least, stick to the view that despite
> any problems, the project and its most involved contributors are proceeding
> in the right direction.

Guilty as charged. Nothing I do, have done, or am likely to do on
Wikipedia is affected by these kinds of shenanigans. So I'm writing
articles about Victorian state parks...how am I affected by whether
someone got a bit zealous with the block stick?

Which isn't to say that I don't think things could be better. But one
more outraged voice isn't going to help. If only there was a place, a
mailing list or something, where one could discuss such things without
hysteria...

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Hey! We really, really *don't* need to turn this into another Durova
thread, ok? Can everyone who doesn't want to respond to Larry's post
go and post somewhere else, preferably entitled ("Another pointless
Durova thread"). Thanks.

Steve

> Please, this is so boring.  You've said that there's nothing "secret"
> about what happened (without adding anything new to your argument)
> over and over again.  By now we've either bought it or we haven't.

> Why don't Bryan and
>anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to
>co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy
>and Slim are lying, if that's what they think

>And Jimbo and Jayjg and Crum and David Gerard and FloNight and...
>well, let's not go right through the subscribers list.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:45:47 -0500, jayjg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Why don't Bryan and
>> anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to
>> co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy
>> and Slim are lying, if that's what they think
>
> And Jimbo and Jayjg and Crum and David Gerard and FloNight and...
> well, let's not go right through the subscribers list.

Oh, for crying out loud. My comment was about the public reaction to the
_suspicion_ that secret mailing lists were being used to etc. It was
meant to rebuke Larry's insinuation that that sort of thing was somehow
accepted operating principle here. Whether it actually went on or not is
a side issue.

Could you please reread my comments and point out where I'm "insisting"
that any particular thing happened or where I'm actually accusing anyone
of lying about anything before painting me as Satan incarnate? It was
meant as a _defense_ of Wikipedia.



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (258 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: One alternative

Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:41:54 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>Oh, for crying out loud. My comment was about the public reaction to the
>_suspicion_ that secret mailing lists were being used to etc. It was
>meant to rebuke Larry's insinuation that that sort of thing was somehow
>accepted operating principle here. Whether it actually went on or not is
>a side issue.

Fair enough, sorry.  I'm feeling very frustrated by the fact that a
small group of what I can only think of as deliberate
mischief-makers went to the Register and promoted the "evil cabal"
meme which, by now, has been very comprehensively rebutted.  It is
extremely aggravating to receive an endless stream of email telling
me how evil Wikipedia is.  

On the plus side, the majority of those Register readers who email
have, when told the full story, rapidly understood why the list
needed to be private and why it was not a critical factor in what
was, in the end, simply a piece of jaw-droppingly bad judgment by
one admin.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

One alternative

Daniel R. Tobias
In reply to this post by Bryan Derksen
 > Fair enough, sorry.  I'm feeling very frustrated by the fact that a
 > small group of what I can only think of as deliberate
 > mischief-makers went to the Register and promoted the "evil cabal"
 > meme which, by now, has been very comprehensively rebutted.

Maybe people feel it necessary to go outside to air their views, when
the "inside" forums tend to greet them with responses like "I think you
should shut the fuck up."



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12345