shhhh it's a secrit (secritcrush) wrote in slapfights,
shhhh it's a secrit
secritcrush
slapfights

Wikipedia, you so funny

We all know wikipedia vandalism is a good time for everyone, but what happens when it's the editors doing the vandalism? They decide Making Light is an attack site:

Making Light hosts attacks on myself and other Wikipedia editors. Please see WP:NPA#Linking to attack sites. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A criticism is not the same thing as an "attack." Making Light, a notable and oft-cited site, hosts thousands of posts by several authors, many of them germane to Wikipedia articles, written by people who have deep knowledge of their fields. None of the references you've removed attack you or other Wikipedia authors. Doctorow 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an attack site. If the owners of that site remove the attacks then it will cease to be an attack site. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[I think Mister Beback has been taking lessons from those jeans clerks who were taunting Greg]

Please also note that the 3RR rule does not apply to removing attack sites. I will continue to revert the restoration of links until the matter is resolved. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Are all criticisms attacks, in your view? If the New York Times published a critical remark about Jimbo, would it be necessary to remove every single link on Wikipedia to nytimes.com until they retracted the article? Doctorow 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about criticisms, I'm talking about personal attacks. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read the material and in my view, it is a criticism. What is your operating definition of an attack? Doctorow 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling people derogatory names and publishing personal information count as attacks, not criticism. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop restoring the links to the site until the attacks have been removed. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Critical terms are not derogatory. I don't see anything particularly revealing in the "personal information." This is unseemly. You appear to be attempting to punish someone who dislikes you by removing references to her site. This seems like retaliation, not an effort to improve Wikipedia. What's more, the repeated demand to change something posted to her site seems like extortion, not an attempt to improve Wikipedia. TNH claims that Wikipedians pursue petty vendettas at the expense of quality. Please conduct yourself in a way that does not lend itself to this interpretation of the project.Doctorow 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'd say that TNH has acted punitively in revenge for perceived problems with Wikipedia. Regardless of her motivation Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks on editors. If she removes the personal attacks then I won't object to restoring the links where appropriate. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The distinction between "personal attack" and "criticism" is subjective and editors should err on the side of caution, especially when they are the subject of criticism (in such times, it is hard to be neutral and to appear neutral). Perhaps you should try to resolve this with TNH. In any event, it is simply a fact that, for example, TNH is a prominent member of the LDS, removing her from this list because she doesn't like you very much is clearly not the intent of WP:NPA#Linking to attack sites. Redacting relevant facts from the encyclopedia because the person who uttered them doesn't like you isn't a good way to produce an encyclopedia. Doctorow 00:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove her name. I removed the link to the attack site. If you think "talentless troll" and "pismire of some variety" are criticisms then I'd be curious to know what you regard as an attack. The publishing of personal information is an attack, there's no debate about that. On the other hand, I have never called TNH any name, so this is unprovoked. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


(and there's more!)

And I learned the phrase wikistalking today. (scroll down for it.):

You see because you are Wikistalking. You should stop that Wil.

The biblio was out of date. I added the 2007 books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs).

Actually it's simply that I have this page on my watchlist. There are two guidelines I should remind you of: assume good faith and autobiography. Do you have a substantive response to my proposal? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


[[1]] Get lost.

Demonstrate your good faith, Will, by refraining from vandalizing related web pages and removing this one from your watch list.


Things get really pissy in the wikipedia trenches, but lest we forget, for women it all comes down to how they look:

Man that's an awful picture! I realize I've been off the SF Con circuit for 10 years or so but surely Kathryn doesn't look like that all the time! I remember her as being very skinny but still quite the Babe. Isn't there a more flattering photo available? Heck, if need be I'll scan one of my own photos of her and upload it just to get rid of the present photo. of course, my photos are circa 1988 to 1992. LiPollis 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


(really I could read the wikipedia discussion pages all day long.)
(via kathryn cramer)
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 7 comments