[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikien-l
Subject:    Re: [WikiEN-l] Libel chill
From:       Ray Saintonge <saintonge () telus ! net>
Date:       2006-04-23 8:27:01
Message-ID: 444B3A55.2010903 () telus ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>If the recent dispute had been guided by these principles it might not 
>>have become as heated.  When a long-standing editor asks for an 
>>explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers we aren't reading the same 
>>page anymore.  It is quite understandable that people will react with a 
>>"Them's fightin' words" attitude.  
>>    
>>
>I disagree quite significantly.  If a longstanding editor asks for an
>explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers, I absolutely do NOT think
>that it is understandable AT ALL that "them's fightin' words" is the
>attitude in response.  That is just silly.  We've been working together
>for a long time now.
>
How you say things makes all the difference.  A dismissive attitude can 
very easily be seen as hostile.  People react that way when the person 
responding does not appear to have assumed good faith.

>I think Erik, in this case, would agree.  If the response had been
>"Actually, Erik, do me a favor and leave this one protected, I can't
>explain why at the moment, but please ask Brad if you need more
>information, perhaps he can give it" then there would have been no
>explosion.
>
Yes, that's my point.  Words like "do me a favor" and "please" can go a 
long way.

>>The person wielding the WP:OFFICE 
>>cudgel needs to be sensitive to the community as well as the 
>>complainant.  He needs to know from experience that any hint of secrecy 
>>underlying his actions will raise the temperature of flames by several 
>>degrees.
>>    
>>
>No, actually, I think the community understands that temporarily not all
>information can always be made immediately public.
>
Nobody's even saying that it has to be ALL information.  A general 
explanation like, "The subject of this article has complained about it; 
it has been temporarily taken offline while we verify the facts."  This 
doesn't even mention the specific points that were complained about.

>What got things wound up in this case was not the secrecy, but a wildly
>disproportionate and unfair blocking and desysopping, when a
>reprotection with a note of "Please ask me before unprotecting this one,
>there are important issues here" would have done the job just fine.
>
Probably, but that's the sort of sensitivity I'm talking about.  The 
perception of secrecy can have a greater effect than the secrecy itself.

Ray

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]