User talk:Alecmconroy/AGF and BADSITES

Just for fun
This essay is about how people should address the SUBSTANCE of discussions, instead of turning the debate back to ad hominem criticism. Just for fun, because I'm addicted to irony, let's see how many people respond to my ideas by criticizing me instead of addressing the ideas contained in the essay. --Alecmconroy 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * MONGO diff. I should have devoted all this time to writing articles instead of writing essays.

Why do you hate Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torrents of torturous torment (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

another discussion analysis....
In the spirit of the above, here's a recent discussion from Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks, It's reproduced verbatim, but I've highlighted sections of responses that I consider to be ad hominem, and unhelpful. To be eggshell creepingly careful, I'd like to make it clear that I believe Will (and MONGO) to be excellent editors, and all of their contributions to be in good faith, even the misguided ones....... Privatemusings 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Progress seems hard to come by. Firstly, per the discussions above, the text in question should be removed. The correct bar is 'would a neutral editor believe there is consensus for its inclusion'? Easy answer.

Second, someone, I believe it was Alec, in one of the areas of this discussion mentioned an aspect that for me hold the greatest chance of success - rules vs. principles.

The community has failed to create a ruleset on this one, because we can't properly define any of the key terms 'attack site', 'harassment' etc. etc. - every single attempt has suffered from subjectivity, and the debate becomes instantly polarized.

This link will be controversial, but I'd encourage readers to click on it, take a look. This is the kind of link we're discussing baning It is Antisocialmedia.net - I can say hand on heart that I'd never heard of this site (except a vague, passing notion that Wordbomb was a bad user) before this discussion came to my attention. What strikes me is that this guy is making points, (maybe not very good ones - though i like the pun 'Orwell's that ends well') and that I am firm in my conviction that a healthy wiki allows us, when relevant, to reference a critic's points, however vitriolic.

I really care about these issues, and am working to move the policy proposal forward. I make the above point in the belief that we need to ground these discussions in real terms, because abstract terms haven't served us well. Please do not edit my comments. Privatemusings 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've hidden behind a sock account in order to protect a probable pseudonym, yet you are defending the inclusion of links which out the RL identites of WP editors? As explanation you write: "I wish to retain my enjoyment in editing articles, so aim to protect myself from any anger or hot feeling, and I wish any points to stand or fall on their merits." Don't you think that other editors would also like to retain their enjoyment of editing articles, shouldn't they be protected from anger and hot feelings, and shouldn't their contributions be judged on their merits, rather than their identities? You appear to be trying to exempt yourself from the outing that you endorse. Am I wrong? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Materially, you're accurate (minus the spin), except in one important respect - I'm not defending inclusion, I'm attacking prohibition. The difference is important. Privatemusings 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're more than defending inclusion, you're rubbing inclusion in the face of people editing this page . Can you explain why you believe that you should be able to edit without harassment but don't think that other editors should have the same privilege? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will, to say 'rubbing inclusion in the face' is unwarranted and aggressive, and I don't believe your approach in asking loaded questions will be helpful for this debate. I believe my posts above to be relatively clear. Privatemusings 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You aren't simply saying we shouldn't prohibit linking to ASM, you're linking to it. That's inclusion. Why you felt it necessary to include a link to a site that has engaged in gross harassment and outing of a Wikipedia editor still isn't clear to me. Nor is it clear to me why you are hiding your identity. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Occam's Razor is a powerful tool. I believe the link to be relevant to the discussion. I believe questions of identity are best left alone (and I can't resist making the point that surely it is these questions that so upset proponents of link removal?). Privatemusings 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This matter of harassment is intimately connected with identity. Many of the sites engaging in harassment seek to "out" the RL identities of WP editors. Can you say whether you are for or against the outing of WP editors? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Categorically against. Except for extremely strong and important reasons (CoI perhaps) outing is horribly aggressive and inappropriate. Privatemusings 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so why is linking to an outing website OK? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't support Stormfront, but support linking to its homepage. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Privatemusings 04:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you say you oppose outing editors, but you support linking to outing sites because doing so provides "sunlight"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Broadly yes. I hope you don't support Stormfront either, but I hope you support linking to it. Do you? Privatemusings 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you support the outing of editors becuase doing provides "sunlight", but you have a doubly-secret username because you don't want to be outed and have any sunlight on your own edits. It's hard to understand your position. Unless StormFront is engaged in harassing editors I don't see the relevance here.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually my username is seven levels deep (insert manic evil mwaa ha ha ha) and nobody will ever know that I'm a dog. Seriously though - you can review all of my edits remotely related to this arena quickly and easily in the usual way. Stormfront (and I'm really wishing this wasn't such a suited example, it's horrible to keep referencing) is a nasty piece of work, harassing and attacking black people, Jews, oh and probably Librarians etc. etc. - so yes, I'm pretty certain that our editors encompass the demographics they attack. But it's still a good thing that we link to them. I'm beginning to feel that our discussion here is bloating somewhat, but would like to ask you to consider if you can see anything a little odd in the perspective you seem to be clinging to where you would defend links to hateful organisations, but remove links to an unreliable, 'tiny blog'? Privatemusings 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you want sunlight shone on your editing career here? Is sunlight only appropriate for other editors? Do other editors require "disinfectant" while you are exempt a similar disinfection?
 * As for Stormfront, I don't see any particular need to link to it It isn't a reliable source. The purpose of our article on the topic is to describe the site, not provide a link to it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your position, whilst consistent (and perhaps admirable) isn't Wiki policy either on sockpuppets - see Sock_puppet, or external links "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." - External_links. You may find support for changing these policies - i think it's out there - but that change would be required before your position represented en/wiki policy. Privatemusings 05:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Privatemusings, the point isn't that you're abusively using a sockpuppet, which you probably are not. The problem is that it's really hypocritical to demand openness in excess of what policies require, while not subjecting yourself to the same openness you expect other people to submit to. -Amarkov moo! 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PM: "I wish to retain my enjoyment in editing articles, so aim to protect myself from any anger or hot feeling, and I wish any points to stand or fall on their merits." Yet you feel comfortable linking to a site full of anger and hot feelings, that seeks to harass other editors. If you want to disinfect your fellow editors by exposing them to sunlight then don't do so while remaining in the shade. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you feel my points may carry more weight if I make my other account known? It's not pleasant to be marked as hypocritical, and I'm feeling aggression towards me, which is also unpleasant. I shall disengage, but still firmly endorse all (my) previous posts. Privatemusings 06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your points would carry more weight if you applied them to yourself. I believe you have written a wonderful summary of how every Wikipedia editor should be treated, but at the same time you are proposing policies which would have the opposite effect. You are saying, "we mustn't do anything to prevent the harassment of editors, but I'm not willing to take the slightest chance of being harassed myself." Is it hypocritical to link to a site that outs editors while hiding behind a sock puppet? I believe it is, but only you can know your true motives. If you were simply expressing a viewpoint and letting it end there it wouldn't be an issue. But since you are among the foremost editors seeking to prevent a useful policy to address the harassment from being drafted or adopted your own response to potential harassment is germane. The purpose of limiting links to sites engaged in harassment is to allow every editor, not just yourself, to retain their enjoyment of editing. Please don't make harassment an accepted norm. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was necessary to reduce this discussion to you calling me a hypocrite - I've just read this post on the mailing list, where William Pietri puts it better than I (responding to Fred Bauder, but I feel the reply appropriate to Will, and others, also;

""Fred, your response here is exactly the reason I think we shouldn't have a BADSITES policy, even the unwritten one we seem to have ended up with.

John has raised a legitimate question, one also unanswered in my mind. You respond by impugning his character and/or his judgement -- in my view, without cause or benefit. However reasonable it is to try to suppress potentially harmful information on a small scale, your good intentions have led you into a reductio ad absurdum position where you are trying to suppress it on ever-larger scales.

Neither you nor Wikipedia has the power necessary to achieve your goal in this case. Any idiot with Google can find the information you are hoping to stamp out. Research and long experience prove that trying to suppress information both makes it more appealing and more persuasive, so your efforts aren't just in vain, they are counterproductive. The only reason I learned about it was all this drama, and I imagine that goes for a lot of people -- possibly including the Slate author.

Now Slashdot, a major tech news site, and Slate, a major general audience web publication owned by the Washington Post, have both mentioned this. It's time for all concerned to accept that the cat is not just out of the bag, but that the bag is in tatters and the cat has had a liter of healthy kittens that are now roving the alleys.

I think the real shame here is that this particular case has poisoned the well for your efforts to protect people, possibly for a long time.

No serious Wikipedia participant is interested in exposing anonymous editors for thrills, or supporting the barking loons that latch on to Wikipedia as the source of all their troubles. By trying ever harder to keep anybody anywhere from talking about SV, you and others have convinced a lot of people that no information-suppression policy could ever work. By overreaching so dramatically, I believe you have reduced your ability to protect other anonymous editors. And that's a shame.""