FANDOM


No rights to participate

GWMNM private property sign

Pronoein
Sun, 22 May 2011 15:19:22

Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit:
> we have no "rights" to participate in Wikipedia.

Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia?


Thomas Morton
Sun, 22 May 2011 15:23:26

Yes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FREESPEECH

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FREESPEECH> Obviously you have your normal legal rights (i.e. if someone does something illegal, then it is a courts matter). But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.

If the consensus of the community is to ban you from the project, even under spurious grounds, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

Tom


Fred Bauder
Sun, 22 May 2011 16:22:21

Anyone who is willing and able to edit constructively and more or less follow our policies has a right to edit. The right is not enforceable in court (there IS no enforceable legal right) but is the policy of the community.

Fred


Fred Bauder
Sun, 22 May 2011 16:23:37

[On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 15:23, Thomas Morton wrote:]
> If the consensus of the community is to ban you from the project, even under spurious grounds, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

> Tom

Community consensus will not permit that.

Fred


WJhonson
Sun, 22 May 2011 16:25:18

In a message dated 5/22/2011 8:23:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, morton.thomas [...] writes:
> But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.

You make the word "private" have no meaning. What would be a "public" website in that case?


Pronoein
Sun, 22 May 2011 16:30:10

Le 22/05/2011 12:23, Thomas Morton a écrit:
> Yes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FREESPEECH

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FREESPEECH> Obviously you have your normal legal rights (i.e. if someone does something illegal, then it is a courts matter). But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.

> If the consensus of the community is to ban you from the project, even under spurious grounds, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

> Tom

Thank you for your answer. I discovered that Wikipedia was not a bureaucracy[1] in the link you gave, that's encouraging. :)

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy


Fred Bauder
Sun, 22 May 2011 16:31:18

[On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 16:25, WJhonson wrote:]
> You make the word "private" have no meaning. What would be a "public" website in that case?

Legally, Wikipedia is private property belonging to a nonprofit corporation. If the United States government, or some other government, owned it and regulated it in such a way as to guarantee public access it would be a public website.

As it is the community does regulate it in that way.

Fred


Thomas Morton
Sun, 22 May 2011 16:32:07

On 22 May 2011 17:25, WJhonson [...] wrote:
> You make the word "private" have no meaning. What would be a "public" website in that case?

I'm note sure I understand... Wikipedia is privately owned by the foundation. There is no real definition of "public website", but I suppose a government website would be publicly owned (although that raises an interesting question as to your rights to access/contribute to such a website).

The point is; you cannot say "stopping me from editing Wikipedia is a violation of my right to free speech" because the WMF (and the editor community, due to their relative control of the eco-system) only grants you the privilege of editing the site, which can be rescinded at any time, for any reason.

As the page says... that is not intended to sound like being a jerk. It is just a practical response to those claiming the misconception they have a right to soapbox on the site.

@Fred:

> Community consensus will not permit that.

I'm not sure I follow... isn't that a paradox? :)

Tom


Thomas Morton
Sun, 22 May 2011 16:37:20

On 22 May 2011 17:31, Fred Bauder [...] wrote:
> As it is the community does regulate it in that way.

No. People are banned or restricted all the time. The point of WP:FREESPEECH is to point out that those bannings can't be contested under the premise that the banned party has a right to edit.

Yes, the community does regulate it this way. That is by convention and common sense, in keeping with the ideals. But if the community agreed tomorrow, by consensus, to ban me then that is it.

And that... was the point in the context of the discussion :)

Tom


Fred Bauder
Sun, 22 May 2011 16:37:21

[On 22 May 2011 16:32, Thomas Morton wrote:]
> I'm not sure I follow... isn't that a paradox? :)

> Tom

Indeed. And should people editing in good faith be prevented from doing so Wikipedia would soon be toast.

That does not mean that there are not isolated cases of injustice. Such users need to patiently and persistently bring their situation to the attention of the community.

Fred


WJhonson
Sun, 22 May 2011 16:44:37

In a message dated 5/22/2011 9:31:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, fredbaud [...] writes:
> Legally, Wikipedia is private property belonging to a nonprofit corporation. If the United States government, or some other government, owned it and regulated it in such a way as to guarantee public access it would be a public website.

My point Fred, is there is no such animal. So calling something a "private website" is redundant, since all websites are private, there are no public websites. Certainly there are websites owned by governments, but they are not public in the sense above that there is guaranteed access to *modify* their contents.


Fred Bauder
Sun, 22 May 2011 17:47:30

There are public spaces which are enforced, for example, freedom of religion or of the press in the United States. But you are correct that words alone fail; such guarantees must be enforced by citizens with a commitment to them. But that is not fundamentally different from how Wikipedia, or any voluntary organization, works.

Fred


Peter Gervai
Mon, 23 May 2011 07:17:47

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 18:44, WJhonson [...] wrote:
> My point Fred, is there is no such animal. So calling something a "private website" is redundant, since all websites are private, there are no public websites. Certainly there are websites owned by governments, but they are not public in the sense above that there is guaranteed access to *modify* their contents.

Let's turn it the other way: there is hardly _any_ objects on the internet where anyone have the legal *right* to do anything at all. (Be that websites or other services.)

Local governmental sites may offer local citizens services which they do have legal right to access and the provider have no right to deny them access, but I'm sure even these sites have terms of service which makes it possible to deny these rights for certain behaviours. I doubt anyone would provide an internationally accessible service usable by people's personal rights, ever.

So, the original question was wrong and the answer was proper: nobody have legal right to use the Wikimedia projects (or, in fact, any websites), and no court could probably enforce that against the terms of the services of the given site. (Maybe not even beyond that, at all.) Every websites are private property, and you're either a customer using the service, or related to the owner somehow; in all other cases you're fobidden to utilise someone else's resources, and you may be offered legal charges for that.

g


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 25 May 2011 02:58:50

At 16:19 22-05-2011, [Pronoein] wrote:
> Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit:
>> we have no "rights" to participate in Wikipedia.

>Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech> Yes it is. "Editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so." "As a private website, Wikipedia has the legal right to block, ban, or otherwise restrict any individual from editing its pages, or accessing its content, with or even without reason." When you participate "your only legal rights on Wikipedia are your <http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork> right to fork and your <http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToLeave> right to leave".

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 25 May 2011 03:34:53

At 17:23 22-05-2011, [Fred Bauder] wrote:
>Community consensus will not permit that.

>Fred

What is called "community consensus" WILL permit you to be banned from any project or mailing list. Even if there is no "community consensus," anyone with the right buttons can do it without any need to justify, explain or write anything that remotely resembles something objective.

Furthermore, if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here, as it has been extensively documented on reliable sources, which makes this statement verifiable, as required.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


FT2
Wed, 25 May 2011 04:14:40

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam at fct.unl.pt>wrote:
> Furthermore, if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here, as it has been extensively documented on reliable sources, which makes this statement verifiable, as required.

Oh dear. This just lost a lot of respect (whatever respect is remaining).

So if someone (anyone?) can cause another person problems, they will? I must remember that as the default expectation of society, or Wikipedia communities at least. Documented as being that extreme by reliable sources no less.

Instead of complaining, you might like to notice how your own attitudes lead to fairly predictable results, and a genuine, noticeable and enduring change of them changes the results.

FT2


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 25 May 2011 05:30:29

Oh my! That's news for you? Let's see. Just a sample from firsthand experiences.

1) From Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Updated_request_for_assistance

"The work on Meta was being done in an orderly manner until the disruption provoked and caused by those same people mentioned above. The user is the same. Trouble only started after the interference of the same people from the Portuguese Wikipedia on Meta. Their votes can be seen popping up on the RfA. There has never been a single block on any other Wikimedia project where these editors do not have any influence. The obvious conclusion is that the hostile behavior stays with that people, not this user."

2) From Wikimedia Outreach:
http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/The_Outreach_debacle

"Please edit those pages as though they were your own wiki. Make yourself at home on the Outreach wiki." Wrote Lennart. Wow! I was in awe. This project and/or these guys had the right stuff." "When I revisited Wikimedia Outreach, my user page had been deleted, my own name suppressed from my message and replaced by (Redacted)." Later, my user page was restored with this quite amazing summary: "restoring per request, it appears this user intended to out himself, removing personal address". It was decided that "Apartado 313, 2826-801 Caparica" is my personal address. Well I regret to have to let you know that "Apartado 313, 2826-801 Caparica" is not my "personal address". It's one of my many mailing addresses. "Apartado" is the Portuguese word for Post Office or P.O. Box, and I can assure you that I never lived there.

From the Portuguese Wikipedia:
http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/The_crusaders_against_education_I

3) http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/The_crusaders_against_education_I#Melhoria_de_predefini.C3.A7.C3.A3o

Em engenharia, quando a obra não é executada de acordo com o projecto é um caso sério. Na Wikipédia chama-se «ajudar». «Em Roma, sê Romano.» É assim. Uma pessoa põe o seu «espírito criativo» a funcionar, é «ajudada» e pronto, lá se foi o que planeou para o «galheiro». Já se tinha agradecido, portanto, é tocar para diante e esperar por melhores dias ou que o «ajudante» vá de férias. Não há nada que um vulgar editor faça que um atento administrador, burocrata e membro do conselho de arbitragem não possa desfazer. Nesta Wikipédia o que não falta são ajudas. Se alguém encontrar por aí a definição de «período para discutir o mérito da página», agradece-se desde já.

4) http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/The_crusaders_against_education_I#O_Emplastro_I

With all the details of the "help" I got to be blocked for the first time. Moral of the story: I'm currently banned and my "helper" is King on the Portuguese Wikipedia, a fine example of a "meritocracy."

Even in these modest examples, if you find anything not verifiable, please let me know.

5) "Furthermore, if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here." Another example:

"Instead of complaining, you might like to notice how your own attitudes lead to fairly predictable results, and a genuine, noticeable and enduring change of them changes the results." FT2

"That does not mean that there are not isolated cases of injustice. Such users need to patiently and persistently bring their situation to the attention of the community." Fred

Could some "consensus" be reached on this matter?

6) Fred Bauder might also be willing to fill you with the details of how extremely helpful he has been to me. Permission is granted to make public all my e-mail messages to him, showing my appreciation for his good deeds.

Any further questions?

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


FT2
Wed, 25 May 2011 08:47:17

Yeah. It's news for me. You really need to be careful not to replace "sometimes" by "always". We have a few hundreds of thousands of active editors over time. So obviously there are some cases where we can see things went badly. What I'm missing is the step from that to " if someone... can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will". A bit of a difference.

This is the kind of logic that (in racists) goes: "A dark skinned man nudged me on the street and didn't say sorry" ----> "all dark skinned people are rude" ----> "Dark skinned people will fuck you over if they can".

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Nor do most people here. That is possibly why other people aren't agreeing with you very much either, or jumping to your support here.

FT2


Fred Bauder
Wed, 25 May 2011 11:02:04

[On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:30, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt> wrote:]
> "That does not mean that there are not isolated cases of injustice. Such users need to patiently and persistently bring their situation to the attention of the community." Fred

> Could some "consensus" be reached on this matter?

> 6) Fred Bauder might also be willing to fill you with the details of how extremely helpful he has been to me. Permission is granted to make public all my e-mail messages to him, showing my appreciation for his good deeds.

> Any further questions?

> Sincerely,

> Virgilio A. P. Machado

The underlying dispute is on the Portuguese Wikipedia.

Fred


Béria Lima
Wed, 25 May 2011 11:29:33

Only a info:

V.A.P. Machado was not banned from pt.wiki because "people does not like him". He was at frist banned from edit project and talk pages[1] due a ArbCom decision[2], but that could be revise each year[2]. Instead of change his behaivor he created a meat/sock puppet[3] and, since the ArbCom decision says that if he created a sock he would be banned for real, this time he was banned[4].
_____

  • Béria Lima*

<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

  • Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.***

[1]: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:AbuseFilter/history/29/diff/prev/262<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:AbuseFilter/history/29/item/160>
[2]: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado
[3]: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_verificadores/Arquivo/2010/04#Carmo_Cunha
[4]: http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registo&type=block&page=Usuário%3AVapmachado


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 25 May 2011 18:59:12

At 09:47 25-05-2011, [FT2] wrote:
>Yeah. It's news for me. You really need to be careful not to replace "sometimes" by "always". We have a few hundreds of thousands of active editors over time. So obviously there are some cases where we can see things went badly. What I'm missing is the step from that to " if someone... can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will". A bit of a difference. This is the kind of logic that (in racists) goes: "A dark skinned man nudged me on the street and didn't say sorry" ----> "all dark skinned people are rude" ----> "Dark skinned people will fuck you over if they can". Sorry, but I don't buy it. Nor do most people here. That is possibly why other people aren't agreeing with you very much either, or jumping to your support here.

> FT2

I'm sorry for not being as brilliant as you are, but I have read my message over and over and can't find any "always" there.

I haven't made any mention of the number of active editors. I don't know what you mean when you say that "obviously there are some cases where we can see things went badly." Nobody ever said that about what you and others like you have done to me.

You can't miss "the step from that to " if someone... can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will"." Just retrace your own steps. Please point an occasion, a message you haven't use to take another stab at me. For what purpose? I know. Doesn't anybody here?

I never made any racist comments, and it saddened me very deeply that you found it appropriate to use that as an example, therefore associating me with that kind of behavior. I do not use the kind of language that you so proudly display, again in a despicable attempt to associate me with the kind of people who do. I wonder how such a nice person such as yourself can resort to that kind of behavior and be so welcome and so highly regarded. That's why you can't be my buddy, pal, friend and why you do have so much trouble feeling any kind of empathy. "Nor do most people here. That is [...] why other people aren't agreeing with you very much either, or [standing up] to your support here."

My apologies to the list for the personal tone of this message, but I believe things were getting a bit out of hand.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


M. Williamson
Wed, 25 May 2011 20:08:22

Virgilio, the statements that you made seemed to indicate that you believed that your own situation was typical and that the results you claim for your situation are inevitable in all cases:

"Furthermore, if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here, as it has been extensively documented on reliable sources, which makes this statement verifiable, as required."

That includes an "if...then" statement, which implies (to me) that there are no exceptions to this supposed rule of universal treachery.

So what you have done is taken this thread, which was much more general, and focused it onto your specific case, with the claim that what you have supposedly suffered is not just an isolated case, but a universal, and on top of that you claimed that this "fact" has been "extensively documented on reliable sources". I'm still waiting to see "reliable sources" to prove that treachery is not only common, but *universal* in our projects.

-m.


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Thu, 26 May 2011 23:59:09

Thank you guys. I knew you wouldn't let me down. You outdid yourselves. On this illustrious mailing list where from «you know who» all the way to the neighborhood young kid posts, I made an apparent innocuous statement that included: "if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here," Now, check the archives. Do you find there a kind and/or nice word? NO. Do you find posts by four volunteers who made a point of proving me right? YES. I'm absolutely sure they were doing their best to help, weren't you? Of course you were. It's not nice to make personal attacks, right? Right.

Y'all have a nice day.

Virgilio A. P. Machado (Signing with my true Wikimedia credentials, now go find a reliable source)
Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia


M. Williamson
Fri, 27 May 2011 17:42:49

I'm not sure any of us had the stated intention of helping you. What, exactly, were we expected to be helping you with?


FT2
Fri, 27 May 2011 08:47:17

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam at fct.unl.pt> wrote:
> Thank you guys. I knew you wouldn't let me down. You outdid yourselves. On this illustrious mailing list where from «you know who» all the way to the neighborhood young kid posts, I made an apparent innocuous statement that included: "if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here," Now, check the archives. Do you find there a kind and/or nice word? NO. Do you find posts by four volunteers who made a point of proving me right? YES. I'm absolutely sure they were doing their best to help, weren't you? Of course you were. It's not nice to make personal attacks, right? Right.

> Y'all have a nice day.

> Virgilio A. P. Machado (Signing with my true Wikimedia credentials, now go find a reliable source)
> Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
> The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia

You appear to have a different definition of "kind or nice word" than I'm used to.

The words have been posted to help you. That is both kind (because it helps) and nice (because it was volunteered, taking up time from my life, for your potential benefit alone). I cannot control if you find them helpful, if you are predisposed to a way of thinking that forces you to ignore or dismiss them, or anything else. None the less they are my understanding of the factual information you probably need to consider to obtain what you are describing.

What is not "kind" or "nice" is to say things that provide unlikely expectations that will eventually be dashed. For example, agreeing with a perception that I didn't find accurate because it would please you.

FT2


Fred Bauder
Fri, 27 May 2011 18:35:36

[On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 17:42, M. Williamson wrote:]
> I'm not sure any of us had the stated intention of helping you. What, exactly, were we expected to be helping you with?

I think the message is a head's up that there might be problems on some Wikimedia projects, and that the pollyannish attitude that everything will work out if one is patient and persistent enough which I sometimes display may be pretty much whistling past the graveyard.

One down, three to go

Ottheinrich Folio288r Rev6A

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Sat, 28 May 2011 01:57:01

No, of course there was no intention, stated or otherwise, to help. That was exactly my point, in case you missed it. If you have to ask about how you are expected to help, you can't afford to do it. You are out of your depth and out of your league (absolutely no offense intended).

I love English lessons. They take me way back to my youth. Of course everybody is entitled to his own definitions of kind and nice, but for "kind" I'll stick to "having or showing a friendly, generous, and considerate nature," and for "nice," "pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory." If you were trying to be both kind and nice, I appreciate that, and regret not having recognized it. Please don't let me forget to let you know whenever you do succeed, but spare me of "taking up time from [your] life, for [my] potential benefit alone." Please don't. Nobody will believe you, and neither will I.

From then on, I have no idea of what you were writing about.

Dealing with an old hand is no kid's business. Got to tread very lightly here. "Whistling past the graveyard" is a very appropriate metaphor considering that the problems, no matter how large or small, of those that are there, are definitely over. Time eventually solves all our problems. If you are "patient and persistent enough" they will go away.

Maintaining best practices is an entirely different matter. I would tend to agree that THERE ARE problems, but it's beyond me to list them all, or the projects where they persist. Given that human nature is what it is, I strongly believe that there is room for continuos improvement, both at the personal level (and I mean no offense to anyone, by implying that any of the members of this list, except myself, are less than perfect) and in each and everyone of the Wikimedia Foundation projects (and I mean no offense to any project and/or members of any project, by implying that any of them, except myself, is less than perfect).

Now comes the tricky part. Let's review what I wrote about Meta, for example:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Updated_request_for_assistance

"The work on Meta was being done in an orderly manner until the disruption provoked and caused by those same people mentioned above. The user is the same. Trouble only started after the interference of the same people from the Portuguese Wikipedia on Meta. Their votes can be seen popping up on the RfA. There has never been a single block on any other Wikimedia project where these editors do not have any influence. The obvious conclusion is that the hostile behavior stays with that people, not this user."

Thousands of people are involved in those processes. It has been and it continues to be discussed extensively elsewhere. I might be one of the few or the only one who has patiently and persistently brought it up here, sometimes at the risk of disrupting this list. I do apologize for that. I wish I didn't have any reasons to do it, but nothing would give me greater satisfaction than realizing that I made a speckle of a difference in making things better for others, so they would not have to go through the same that I did, and at least one Wikimedia project would be better off for that.

I recall how some people have been so baffled that they wonder about what are my intentions. I don't think I ever answered. We all know that "hell is full of good intentions." What I have done is nothing, but whatever I have done for the Wikimedia Foundation projects nobody can take away from me. Now, would you believe me if I told you that there are some people who are spending their time and effort trying to do just that? Sad isn't it? But yes, it is true, you better believe me.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia

And the winner is...

Commemorative coin Portugal 2008

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 18:46:29

1) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062378.html

2) Start here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-December/062845.html

and follow by thread or date.

Enjoy,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia

The Wikipedia-Ready Essay

Fred Bauder
Mon, 30 May 2011 16:42:14

An interesting technique:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/May2011/30/c8623.html

Fred


Sarah
Tue, 31 May 2011 08:43:02

Thanks for the link. I actually felt a surge of pride when I read it:

"A student writing an essay for their teacher may be tempted to plagiarize or leave facts unchecked. A new study shows that if you ask that same student to write something that will be posted on Wikipedia, he or she suddenly becomes determined to make the work as accurate as possible, and may actually do better research. ...

"[Brenna Gray] says despite its faults, [Wikipedia] does promote solid values for its writers, including precise citations, accurate research, editing and revision."

Sarah


Vandal&#039;s and glazier&#039;s delight - geograph.org.uk - 694153

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:58:48

Now that my attention has been drawn to that section, I wonder if that explains why the academic projects were not welcome and their contributions are being vandalized, almost systematically, at the Brazilian Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


M. Williamson
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 02:48:00

Professor Machado:

This is an interesting allegation, I would be quite interested to see some examples of this taking place.

-m.


Milos Rancic
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 03:24:00

On 06/01/2011 02:58 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> Now that my attention has been drawn to that section, I wonder if that explains why the academic projects were not welcome and their contributions are being vandalized, almost systematically, at the Brazilian Wikipedia.

If you refer to any Brazilian native language edition of Wikipedia, may you specify?

If you refer to Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia, Language committee still doesn't allow BCP 47 language tags. We are allowing just ISO 639-1 alpha-2 and ISO 639-3 alpha-3 language tags, which shouldn't be confused with ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes for countries.

If that's true, that means that someone has opened new project without following regular procedure. That's serious problem. May you, please, point to the project, so we could know if it is about abusing technical permissions or about some other, more serious issue?

If that's true, I would like to thank you to pointing to very serious problem inside of Wikimedia. I would also like to thank you for pointing how harmful is not following the rules in the sense of opening new projects.


Béria Lima
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 07:42:49

[On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 03:24, Milos Rancic wrote:]
> If you refer to any Brazilian native language edition of Wikipedia, may you specify?

Milos,

There not such thing as "brazilian Wikipédia". The wikipédia he is talking abut is pt.wikipedia.org. Why he call it "Brazilian" is better ask him.
_____

  • Béria Lima*

<http://wikimedia.pt/> (351) 925 171 484

  • Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.***

Samuel Klein
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:46:39

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Fred Bauder [...] wrote:
> An interesting technique:

> http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/May2011/30/c8623.html

This is so true!

My highschool sweetheart is a science prof, and recently pointed me to this essay that one of her students published to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perception_and_production_of_music&oldid=431277568

You can see the elements that come from a class essay ('The following will cover', no internal links) and the elements that come from Wikipedia style (aggressive footnoting, sectioning).

Those who toil away in the depths of style guide subpages and cite templates should be reminded from time to time of the tremendous impact their work has on the rest of the world...

SJ


Sarah
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:42:28

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 02:46, Samuel Klein [...] wrote:
> Those who toil away in the depths of style guide subpages and cite templates should be reminded from time to time of the tremendous impact their work has on the rest of the world...

Speaking of which, David Gerard has just posted this to wikiEN-l. :)

http://xkcd.com/906/


David Gerard
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 11:04:22

Ta bu shi da yu is still slightly chagrined that the (likely) one thing he has created that will resonate through culture is "[citation needed]".

- d.


Samuel Klein
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 18:13:01

And Larry Sanger and Magnus may be remembered for popularizing "disambiguation" outside of linguistics...

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj/2009/06/25/on-disambiguation-and-the-atomization-of-meaning/

SJ


Fred Bauder
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 18:51:05

Disconflation gets only 45 google hits while unconflation gets 267. Conflation, I guess, refers to confusion of similar ideas rather than similar words.

Fred


FT2
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 19:13:52

I always took the central point about conflation to be the unwitting mixing up of separate ideas - usually but not always to the mild confusion or detriment of both.

FT2


Fred Bauder
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 20:10:38

Good research topic: What characteristics of ideas or facts lead to conflation. To take a notorious example, when Sarah Palin was asked about her foreign relations experience with respect to Russia, she replied that you could see Russia from Alaska. But true conflation, as a menace to discourse, includes much less easily distinguished concepts.

Fred

Showdown

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:20:19

The evidence is in.

Wanton vandalism

Your move.

Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)

Executive Editor, Logística, a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia


Wikipedia Meetup Dallas portrait 1

Austin Hair
Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:49:09

I'm not sure whose move it is, exactly, so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm out of turn.

You've been given more chances than usual, Virgilio, but I'm afraid enough is finally enough. The list administrators will be monitoring your next several posts until we're convinced that you can maintain a decent civility:trolling ratio.

Best regards,

Austin


Austin,

Let's use your beloved Wikipedia definitions:

The term civility refers to behavior between persons and groups that conforms to a social mode (that is, in accordance with the civil society), as itself being a foundational principle of society and law.

This doesn't seem to apply, since Wikipedia has its own principles and laws.

For the Wikipedia policy on civility, see Wikipedia:Civility:

Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.

This obviously refers to Wikipedia ("In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment") which is also not the case, since the "environment" is a mailing list.

I guess you have to pick your own definition of civility[Citation needed] and quote me being incivil. In case it might make things easier for you, I'll throw in "incivil", also from Wikipedia, which redirects to "incivility".

Incivility is a general term for social behavior lacking in civility or good manners, on a scale from rudeness or lack of respect for elders, to vandalism and hooliganism, through public drunkenness and threatening behavior.

The distinction between plain rudeness, and perceived incivility as threat, will depend on some notion of civility as structural to society; incivility as anything more ominous than bad manners is therefore dependent on appeal to notions like its antagonism to the complex concepts of civic virtue or civil society.

Please, try not to embarrass yourself, using a definition of civility that notoriously does not fit your own behavior, which of course would not be an excuse for me to stoop even lower.

Now let's move on to that so often used but hardly as well understood concept of "trolling". No need to waste time and space. Let's go straight to "trolling as it pertains to Wikipedia"

We are faced with a not so uncommon ambiguity: "What is a troll?" an essay on Meta-Wiki and "Troll (Internet)", an article on Wikipedia. Let's look at both.

From Meta-Wiki:

Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent).

There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls. [my bold]

The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all.

From Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Please be so kind as to quote me trolling.

This is not Wikipedia or "your" mailing list. Please produce evidence that will establish beyond a reasonable doubt that my posts do not satisfy a definition (whatever that might be) of civility and/or that I have been trolling the fondation-l mailing list. You don't need access to this wiki to do that. You may use "your" mailing list where, apparently, you can write whatever you want. If you fail to do so, any reader may see that you wrote and placed me on moderation (i.e. censorship) for the indefinite future under false pretenses.

thumb|300px|right|You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.

That is quite unfortunate, since, as far as I know you didn't have to give any justification at all. On Wikipedia, and I believe also on any Wikimedia project and mailing list you only have two legal rights. There is a problem, however. As none of your fellow list administrators cared to voice any dissenting opinion, and neither did any other member of the list, if you fail, they also will be held accountable for your deception, conniving with you and being your accomplices, sharing with you equal responsibility in your shameful and despicable behavior.

By the way, my post of June 24 is just an answer to this request from Mark Williamson. If that makes you feel stupid, please don't blame me. I can't fix stupid.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado