freenode #wikipedia

2008-04-10 13:40 < treepie> In UK court, the burden of evidence is on the author or publisher making the statement to prove that it is true.
2008-04-10 13:40 < _kmh_> treepie : http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 <--- you might find this one interesting
2008-04-10 13:40 < ShakespeareFan00> Wikipedia is not based on the UK, and that interprtatio is commonly held but not nessacrily correct...
2008-04-10 13:41 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: Wow. And before treepie, I thought I'd never meet someone more cynical about Wikipedia than NotACow...
2008-04-10 13:41 < treepie> Furthermore, the UK considers anything published in the UK to be in their jurisdiction.
2008-04-10 13:41 < _kmh_> ShakespeareFan00 : i completely agree on false statements
2008-04-10 13:41 < treepie> Hence, libel tourism.
2008-04-10 13:41 < ShakespeareFan00> treepie: Erm, actually...
2008-04-10 13:41 < ShakespeareFan00> I was given alternate advice once
2008-04-10 13:42 < ShakespeareFan00> I was told that because a website was based in the US, it couldn't be sued because the site could merely be viewed in the UK, even though UK contributors were involved
2008-04-10 13:42 < quanticle> treepie: Doesn't quite work like that, sorry. The Wikimedia Foundation, which actually runs Wikipedia is incorporated in Florida (I think), so, for civil matters, you'd have to sue there.
2008-04-10 13:42 < ShakespeareFan00> (Due to something called Section 230 ..)
2008-04-10 13:42 < Cyrius> quanticle: NotACow is merely cynical, there's plenty of people who think it's _evil_
2008-04-10 13:42 < _kmh_> ShakespeareFan00 : factual correctness is non negotiable
2008-04-10 13:43 < treepie> Section 230 only protects service providers if they are sued in the US.
2008-04-10 13:43 < _kmh_> ShakespeareFan00 : contrary to notatibility
2008-04-10 13:43 < ShakespeareFan00> And as _kmh_: Says 'fact' or 'turth' is a valid defence to a libel charge
2008-04-10 13:43 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: I think the contributors can be sued though. I.e. if you edit Wikipedia to add something libelous, you can be sued, even though Wikipedia cannot.
2008-04-10 13:43 < ShakespeareFan00> as is 'justifcation'
2008-04-10 13:43 < Cyrius> this isn't about libel, this is about inconvenient facts
2008-04-10 13:44 < treepie> http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2006/11/07/libel_tourism_and_the_war_on_terror/
2008-04-10 13:44 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: Fact/truth is not a valid defence in all locales, but in the US it most certainly is.
2008-04-10 13:44 < treepie> US law doesn't matter if someone sues you elsewhere.
2008-04-10 13:44 < ShakespeareFan00> quanticle: It is in the UK
2008-04-10 13:44 < ShakespeareFan00> treepie: That may be so, but the UK courts have recently taken a dim view about libel tourism
2008-04-10 13:45 < treepie> Libel tourism is also possible in France.
2008-04-10 13:45 < ShakespeareFan00> And how Private Eye survives , I never know
2008-04-10 13:45 < treepie> And if you defame and Australian, you can be sued in Australia.
2008-04-10 13:45 < quanticle> treepie: True, but they have no way of collecting their penalties if you don't go to the said jurisdiction.
2008-04-10 13:45 < ShakespeareFan00> and the US courts won't nessacrily allow collection of what is a forigen ruling
2008-04-10 13:45 < quanticle> treepie: UK and French courts do not have jurisdiction in the US, so there's no way for the person to collect...
2008-04-10 13:45 < treepie> So, basically, WP defames people because *it can get away with it*.
2008-04-10 13:46 < ShakespeareFan00> NO
2008-04-10 13:46 < treepie> That doesn't make defamation ethical.
2008-04-10 13:46 < ShakespeareFan00> WP aims not to defame
2008-04-10 13:46 < quanticle> treepie: Depends on your definition of defamation.
2008-04-10 13:46 < ShakespeareFan00> and you definiton of 'getting away with it'
2008-04-10 13:46 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: That too.
2008-04-10 13:46 < Ceiling_Cat> WOHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
2008-04-10 13:46 < Ceiling_Cat> LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!!!
2008-04-10 13:46 < quanticle> Ceiling_Cat: What?
2008-04-10 13:46 < ShakespeareFan00> I'm sure if Wikipedia were to allege direct collusion of a prominent politican in terrorism, it would rightly get sued
2008-04-10 13:46 < Ceiling_Cat> My advisor just told me that he wants me to give him a full copy of my thesis tomorrow
2008-04-10 13:47 < Working_Cat> Ceiling_Cat: its the train, dammit
2008-04-10 13:47 < treepie> I think randomly accusing people of paedophilia without any evidence is considered defamatory in all jurisdictions that define defamation.
2008-04-10 13:47 < quanticle> Ceiling_Cat: Nice.
2008-04-10 13:47 < Ceiling_Cat> he'll read it over the weekend
2008-04-10 13:47 < Ceiling_Cat> and if he likes what he sees, he'll sign it monday
2008-04-10 13:47 < quanticle> Ceiling_Cat: And if he doesn't like it?
2008-04-10 13:47 < Ceiling_Cat> quanticle - more revisions
2008-04-10 13:47 < ShakespeareFan00> treepie: Agreed, but you can't hold Wikipedia as an entityt responsible
2008-04-10 13:47 < Working_Cat> quanticle: 5 more years of PhD :D
2008-04-10 13:47 < ShakespeareFan00> by all means hold the indvidual editors responsible
2008-04-10 13:47 < Ceiling_Cat> Working_Cat -no no, this is the master's thesis
2008-04-10 13:47 < ShakespeareFan00> The more vanadls get held to account the better
2008-04-10 13:47 < quanticle> Ceiling_Cat: So it could be the light at the end of the tunnel, or it could be just another freight train...
2008-04-10 13:48 < Working_Cat> Ceiling_Cat: 2 more years of Masters
2008-04-10 13:48 < Ceiling_Cat> quanticle - he's *promised* me I'll finish this semester
2008-04-10 13:48 < Ceiling_Cat> and the submission deadline is April 21
2008-04-10 13:48 < treepie> ShakespeareFan00: But if WP refuses to delete an article which has already been used to defame the subject? Or worse yet, leaves the defamation itself up there?
2008-04-10 13:48 < Working_Cat> quanticle: afaik the profs, its more likely the freight train
2008-04-10 13:48 < ShakespeareFan00> treepie: An article can be oversighted if the subject complains
2008-04-10 13:48 < Ceiling_Cat> so there's a definite limit on the number of revisiions we can do if he wants to keep his promise
2008-04-10 13:48 < Working_Cat> though ofcourse, lets pray that the cat passes the scan.
2008-04-10 13:48 < quanticle> Ceiling_Cat: If I had a penny for every time a professor "promised" something, I'd be a multibillionaire.
2008-04-10 13:49 < Working_Cat> quanticle: XD
2008-04-10 13:49 < quanticle> Ceiling_Cat: Remember, its no skin off his back if you're in school for another semester.
2008-04-10 13:49 < treepie> ShakespeareFan00: Tell that to Daniel Brandt. Rachel Marsden. Don Murphy.
2008-04-10 13:49 < ShakespeareFan00> And in any event the 'deletion' should be limited to the actual defamatory comments, you can't remove fact or truth
2008-04-10 13:49 < treepie> Anyway, I am not on hunger strike over defamation. I am on hunger strike over privacy violations.
2008-04-10 13:50 < ShakespeareFan00> treepie: Danial Brandt's article got deleted after 18 attempts :)
2008-04-10 13:50 < quanticle> treepie: What privacy violations? Everything on Wikipedia is from publicly viewable sources.
2008-04-10 13:50 < ShakespeareFan00> I think it was 18 AFD's?
2008-04-10 13:50 < treepie> ShakespeareFan00: Firstly, it's not enough for it to be true. It has to be provable, in a court of law.
2008-04-10 13:50 < ShakespeareFan00> ROFL
2008-04-10 13:50 < ShakespeareFan00> Relaity doesn't work that way
2008-04-10 13:50 < treepie> quanticle: Have you never heard of vandals, newbies, and everything outside of the article namespace?
2008-04-10 13:51 < ShakespeareFan00> treepie: So you want wikipedia to self-censor?
2008-04-10 13:51 < ShakespeareFan00> And delete all talk pages, all project pages, and have a gran high facist inquistor ensuring the ethical standards are maintained?
2008-04-10 13:51 < treepie> Yes, I am advocating censorship. Particularly upon receipt of a complaint.
2008-04-10 13:51 < quanticle> treepie: Nope. In fact, it doesn't even have to be true. If the document can be shown to be incorrect, but still believable, its still not libel.
2008-04-10 13:51 < ShakespeareFan00> In otherwords turn Wikipedia into Britanica?
2008-04-10 13:52 < ShakespeareFan00> treepie: You mean article qurantine?
2008-04-10 13:52 < quanticle> treepie: Well, its a good thing you don't run Wikipedia then...
2008-04-10 13:52 < treepie> I believe everything outside of the article namespace should be hidden from Google.
2008-04-10 13:52 < ShakespeareFan00> That is reasonable
2008-04-10 13:53 < ShakespeareFan00> I hold a simmilar view
2008-04-10 13:53 < treepie> quanticle: What is the purpose of a charity? To help *people*, or to further its own existence?
2008-04-10 13:53 < treepie> Defamation and privacy violations, in any namespace, should be Oversighted upon complaint.
2008-04-10 13:53 < quanticle> treepie: Many will agree that Wikipedia has been helpful to them.
2008-04-10 13:53 < ShakespeareFan00> treepie: Automaticly?
2008-04-10 13:53 < quanticle> treepie: So you're advocating censorship without due process?
2008-04-10 13:54 < ShakespeareFan00> I.E You want CoS to be able to 'disconnect' inoccent Wikipedians?
2008-04-10 13:54 < treepie> quanticle: Is defaming people and violating people's privacy not harmful to the people targeted? Is not harming people contrary to helping them?
2008-04-10 13:54 < quanticle> treepie: How do you know its defamation?
2008-04-10 13:54 < ShakespeareFan00> "oh we must burn the book because ti says da Fhurer is an ass!"
2008-04-10 13:55 < ShakespeareFan00> ;)
2008-04-10 13:55 < treepie> Saying someone is an ass is a statement of opinion.
2008-04-10 13:55 < treepie> Only statements of fact can be defamatory.
2008-04-10 13:55 < quanticle> treepie: There are legal definitions of defamation. If there is defamatory information on Wikipedia, you are free to file papers in the US suing Wikipedia for such.
2008-04-10 13:55 < ShakespeareFan00> ROFL
2008-04-10 13:55 < ShakespeareFan00> ROFL
2008-04-10 13:55 < ShakespeareFan00> ROFL
2008-04-10 13:55 < ShakespeareFan00> ROFL
2008-04-10 13:56 < quanticle> treepie: Facts, if true, cannot be defamatory in the US.
2008-04-10 13:56 < _kmh_> treepie : how can facts be defamatory ?
2008-04-10 13:56 < ShakespeareFan00> trepiee: Opinions can be held to be defamatory, true facts cannot
2008-04-10 13:56 < quanticle> treepie: And, if the facts are false, they still have to be shown to be written in malice
2008-04-10 13:56 < treepie> If the fact has no evidence and is harmful to someone's reputation, it is defamatory.
2008-04-10 13:56 < Cyrius> ShakespeareFan00: take care you don't roll off the balcony
2008-04-10 13:56 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: Well, even opinions have a fairly high bar before they reach defamatory status
2008-04-10 13:56 < _kmh_> more over false facts are no facts at all :)
2008-04-10 13:57 < quanticle> treepie: Right, but you're not the one to be making such judgements. That's a job for the courts. As I said earlier, if you really think there's an issue of defamation, you are free to file court papers.
2008-04-10 13:58 < treepie> _kmh_: Saying 'So-and-so is a paedophile' is a statement of fact. It can be true or false. If you have no evidence, it's defamatory. Saying 'So-and-so is a dick', however, is a statement of opinion. It cannot be proven true or false, and should be covered by fair comment laws.
2008-04-10 13:58 < Working_Cat> is ShakespeareFan00 ROFL'ing in blank verse?
2008-04-10 13:59 < Working_Cat> treepie: iirc, that just a statement, not a statement of fact.
2008-04-10 13:59 < quanticle> treepie: Even if the statement of fact is false, you still have to show that it was uttered in malice to make your libel or defamation case.
2008-04-10 13:59 < treepie> quanticle: In certain jurisdictions, if someone is a public figure, malice must be proven. But not in all jurisdictions, and not that I've ever heard of in the case of non-public figures.
2008-04-10 13:59 < quanticle> treepie: In the US, you have to prove malice.
2008-04-10 14:00 < treepie> quanticle: In the US, if you are a public figure (e.g. politician), you have to prove malice.
2008-04-10 14:00 < treepie> quanticle: In the US, different standards apply to public and non-public figures.
2008-04-10 14:01 < treepie> And I am not on hunger strike over defamation. I am on hunger strike over privacy violations and failure to Oversight them even upon request.
2008-04-10 14:02 < quanticle> treepie: Was your privacy violated?
2008-04-10 14:03 < treepie> Yes.
2008-04-10 14:03 < treepie> And, as a result, AW was able to make credible threats of physical violence against me.
2008-04-10 14:03 < quanticle> treepie: Are you in the same country as AW?
2008-04-10 14:04 < quanticle> treepie: If the threat was credible, you could have gone to the police.
2008-04-10 14:04 < treepie> I don't know where AW lives.
2008-04-10 14:04 < treepie> Call the police. Call an ambulance. Call the pizza deliver guy. See who shows up first.
2008-04-10 14:05 < quanticle> treepie: Also, how is going on hunger strike going to ease these "threats of physical violence"?
2008-04-10 14:05 < Working_Cat> treepie: if the pizza guy shows up first, privacy on WP should be the least of your concern.
2008-04-10 14:06 < treepie> It's supposed to prevent future threats of violence.
2008-04-10 14:06 < treepie> An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
2008-04-10 14:06 < quanticle> treepie: And how, exactly, will it do that?
2008-04-10 14:06 < Working_Cat> or for any citizen for that matter.
2008-04-10 14:06 < quanticle> treepie: How will your starvation prevent future threats of violence...
2008-04-10 14:07 < treepie> quanticle: AW threatened to use the personal information to find me. Granted, you can threaten violence against someone you can't find, but you can't carry it out, and it's not credible, and therefore not so upsetting.
2008-04-10 14:08 < quanticle> treepie: But what does this have to do with you going on hunger strike?
2008-04-10 14:08 < quanticle> Hint: Hunger strikes only work if the other side actually cares and/or you're able to muster a following to protest with you...
2008-04-10 14:08 < treepie> It's not like WP doesn't give Brandt and WR a hard time about 'outing people'. It is completely hypocritical for WP to do that while refusing to Oversight outing that appears on WP itself.
2008-04-10 14:09 < quanticle> treepie: You're not answering my question - how will you going on hunger strike change anything, given that you don't have a following...
2008-04-10 14:09 < treepie> quanticle: I am on hunger strike until action is taken to improve the Oversight policy.
2008-04-10 14:09 < quanticle> treepie: And how will your hunger strike change the policy
2008-04-10 14:09 < treepie> I think the goal is to pressure people to change the policy.
2008-04-10 14:10 < Cyrius> you don't know?
2008-04-10 14:10 < treepie> Embarrass them, whatever.
2008-04-10 14:10 < quanticle> treepie: Something tells me that you haven't thought your brillant plan all the way through. You're not Mohandas Ghandi, you don't have a following, and no one on the Internet cares enough to pressure Wikipedia.
2008-04-10 14:11 < treepie> I care.
2008-04-10 14:11 < quanticle> treepie: One person does not a mass movement make
2008-04-10 14:11 < treepie> So the WP community would rather be hypocritical about outing?
2008-04-10 14:12 < Working_Cat> treepie: WP community would rather not care less.
2008-04-10 14:13 < treepie> Working_Cat: So unban Daniel Brandt, WordBomb, etc.
2008-04-10 14:13 < quanticle> treepie: "Outing", as you put it isn't a major concern, no...
2008-04-10 14:13 < treepie> If outing is not a problem, please unban Daniel Brandt and WordBomb. Thanks.
2008-04-10 14:13 < Working_Cat> treepie: that would qualify as giving a damn. but hey, im a complete noob. im just commenting on human nature.
2008-04-10 14:14 < Cyrius> brandt isn't interested in working with us
2008-04-10 14:14 < Krimpet> actually, I agree it is a problem, and indeed, people on WP are hypocritical about it at times. where is the outing going on right now, though?
2008-04-10 14:14 < treepie> Checkusers have been outing people in block logs, and I was outed somewhere outside of the article namespace.
2008-04-10 14:16 < Krimpet> CUs should make an effort to make their blocks relatively ambiguous for that reason (e.g. only tagging as {{checkuserblock}}, and not naming who the IP belongs to)
2008-04-10 14:17 < treepie> Krimpet: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15110
2008-04-10 14:17 < treepie> http://forum.encyc.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=80
2008-04-10 14:17 < treepie> Krimpet: That's the problem. Sometimes, they do name who the IP belongs to.
2008-04-10 14:18 < Cyrius> IP addresses are not secret
2008-04-10 14:18 < treepie> Cyrius: If someone has only been editing while logged in, it is a secret, except to eavesdroppers and people with access to site logs.
2008-04-10 14:18 < Krimpet> if they do, they shouldn't be. that's certainly grounds to complain.
2008-04-10 14:19 < treepie> Krimpet: Additionally, pseudonymous accounts are sometimes blocked as sockpuppets of apparent real name accounts.
2008-04-10 14:19 < Cyrius> which is not secret at all
2008-04-10 14:20 < treepie> Krimpet: I've listed timestamps of such block log entries in the above links. It isn't easy to tell what is actually outing and what was already public knowledge, but some of them are actually labelled as checkuserblocks.
2008-04-10 14:21 < Krimpet> well, that's more valid; the banned user could privately request their account be renamed if they consider it a problem
2008-04-10 14:21 < treepie> Cyrius: Connecting a pseudonymous identity to a real-life one is generally considered outing.
2008-04-10 14:21 < Cyrius> if you're relying on nobody finding out your IP address, you're not keeping any secrets
2008-04-10 14:22 < Cyrius> it's like using social security numbers for authentication
2008-04-10 14:22 < Cyrius> it's not a secret
2008-04-10 14:22 < treepie> Krimpet: Or, the alleged sockpuppet could simply be blocked as a 'sockpuppet of an apparent real name account', without mentioning which real-name account.
2008-04-10 14:23 < treepie> Cyrius: I use Tor. My IP address really is a secret. However, I was banned for doing so: WP expects people to trust them with their IP addresses, but then outs them.
2008-04-10 14:23 < _kmh_> treepie :?
2008-04-10 14:23 < _kmh_> wiki does require your ip afaik
2008-04-10 14:23 < quanticle> treepie: How many times do we have to tell you? On the internet, your IP is not private...
2008-04-10 14:24 < treepie> Also, if WR were to reveal the IP address of an admin, it would be considered outing, even if no private log data was utilized.
2008-04-10 14:24 < Krimpet> treepie: it's tough, cause it's important indicate why you're blocking someone, hence you indicate who the sockpupeteer is
2008-04-10 14:24 < Cyrius> you want rights on wikipedia that wikipedia does not guarantee
2008-04-10 14:25 < treepie> quanticle: I am using a proxy chain with layered encryption. My IP actually is private. My exit node is not.
2008-04-10 14:25 < _kmh_> thor ?
2008-04-10 14:25 < treepie> Cyrius: In the same spirit, many people on WP want rights on WR and HM that WR and HM do not guarantee.
2008-04-10 14:25 < Cyrius> tor, the onion router
2008-04-10 14:26 < _kmh_> treepie : but i don't understand where the exact probkem is that you have
2008-04-10 14:26 < Cyrius> treepie: attacking people on another site is not nice
2008-04-10 14:26 < _kmh_> what is WR ?
2008-04-10 14:26 < Cyrius> labelling people who do bad things on your own site is acceptable
2008-04-10 14:26 < snowolf> _kmh_: Wikipedia Review
2008-04-10 14:26 < _kmh_> oh
2008-04-10 14:26 < treepie> Cyrius: But attacking people on a site with a high Google ranking is okay?
2008-04-10 14:27 < quanticle> treepie: Then, if your IP really has so many safeguards around it, how is it that CheckUser was able to identify your "real" IP?
2008-04-10 14:27 < _kmh_> and HM ?
2008-04-10 14:27 < Cyrius> if those people are doing bad things on said site, yes
2008-04-10 14:27 < treepie> quanticle: *Other people* have been outed by Checkusers.
2008-04-10 14:27 < snowolf> _kmh_: that I don't know, I thought it was Her Majesty, but...
2008-04-10 14:27 < Cyrius> I have no idea
2008-04-10 14:27 < treepie> Cyrius: And prohibiting them from responding on-site?
2008-04-10 14:28 < treepie> Of course they will go elsewhere to defend themselves, if you leave them no other option.
2008-04-10 14:28 < _kmh_> hmmm looks like i'm way behind on acronyms and wikispeak :)
2008-04-10 14:28 < treepie> And not all WP blocks are bad.
2008-04-10 14:28 < treepie> Not all that glitters is gold, either.
2008-04-10 14:28 < quanticle> treepie: And who died and made you grand defender of those outed on Wikipedia?
2008-04-10 14:28 < Cyrius> _kmh_: this is "critic" (for broad values of critic) speak
2008-04-10 14:28 < treepie> _kmh_: WR is a site which criticises WP.
2008-04-10 14:29 < _kmh_> this is a critic ?
2008-04-10 14:29 < treepie> quanticle: I'm not as selfish as you seem to think I am. I do care about people besides myself who have been hurt by WP.
2008-04-10 14:30 < scorchsaber_> I've always wondered why people claim wikipedia (in general) hates WR.
2008-04-10 14:30 < Krimpet> we're willing to try to handle these things on a case-by-case basis. BLP and defamation _are_ problems WP struggles with, and more and more people have been coming around and realizing this recently.
2008-04-10 14:30 < Cyrius> Krimpet: it's not about BLP
2008-04-10 14:30 < scorchsaber_> Surely criticism is completely in the spirit of a community-edited encyclopedia?
2008-04-10 14:30 < _kmh_> BLP=?
2008-04-10 14:30 < Cyrius> scorchsaber_: it's not criticism, it's bashing
2008-04-10 14:30 < treepie> _kmh_: HM = Hivemind, where Daniel Brandt publishes information about some WP admins, etc.
2008-04-10 14:30 < Krimpet> Cyrius: it is kinda
2008-04-10 14:30 < Cyrius> Krimpet: this is about users
2008-04-10 14:30 < snowolf> _kmh_: Biography of Livinge People
2008-04-10 14:30 < _kmh_> ah ok
2008-04-10 14:31 < treepie> Mostly bashing of a defencive nature.
2008-04-10 14:31 < Krimpet> a lot of the controversy ends up over people pissed about their BLP, who join and get banned
2008-04-10 14:31 < treepie> If WP defames someone, *of course* that person will be angry.
2008-04-10 14:31 < scorchsaber_> Fair enough, I suppose.
2008-04-10 14:31 < quanticle> treepie: I'm not saying that you're selfish. I'm saying that its not your place to be defending these people without them asking you.
2008-04-10 14:31 < Cyrius> Daniel Brandt has no interest in constructive criticism
2008-04-10 14:31 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : wiki in general surely does not, lotsa wikipedians may not even know of WR even (st least i did not)
2008-04-10 14:31 < snowolf> scorchsaber_: WP doesn't hate anybody. It's a project, formed by very differently minded editors. Also, I doubt that we can say that WR is hated, some admins (mostly checkusers it seems) post there. There are other sistes that are hated in the proper sense, I believe.
2008-04-10 14:31 < scorchsaber_> Well that's a shame.
2008-04-10 14:31 < treepie> quanticle: I doubt they were asked for their permission to be outed.
2008-04-10 14:32 < scorchsaber_> Personally, I think a website that does proper criticism of wikipedia would be a great thing.
2008-04-10 14:32 < treepie> Cyrius: Daniel Brandt has every interest in constructive criticism.
2008-04-10 14:32 < Cyrius> no he doesn't
2008-04-10 14:32 < scorchsaber_> I'm not sure how much room there is for that, though.
2008-04-10 14:32 < quanticle> treepie: What's done is done. Who are you to bring these things back up, and place yourself as some kind of crusader on behalf of these people?
2008-04-10 14:32 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : there are many, however imho many of them fail to understand how wiki really works
2008-04-10 14:33 < ShakespeareFan00> BTW isn't a hunger stirke considerd 'terrorism' by some laws?
2008-04-10 14:33 < treepie> quanticle: What's been done in the past will continue to happen in the future if nothing is done about it.
2008-04-10 14:33 < quanticle> treepie: Its kind of arrogant, no? To think that these people are not capable of presenting their own case?
2008-04-10 14:33 < ShakespeareFan00> "Being a violent act , designed to achive or motivate a political agenda'?
2008-04-10 14:33 < Working_Cat> ShakespeareFan00: in pre-independence India, yeah.
2008-04-10 14:33 < _kmh_> ShakespeareFan00 : reference ?:-)
2008-04-10 14:33 < quanticle> treepie: That may be true, but, again, I ask, who are you to crusade?
2008-04-10 14:33 < treepie> ShakespeareFan00: Hunger striking is specifically a non-violent protest method.
2008-04-10 14:33 < treepie> Passive resistance.
2008-04-10 14:34 < treepie> Quanticle: Someone with ethics.
2008-04-10 14:34 < Krimpet> brandt's case is tough. he has always had a legitimate reason to beef, the problem is the childish way he's reacted has turned it into a tit-for-tat match of the lamest nature
2008-04-10 14:34 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: I don't know where a hunger strike would be considered protest, but its no place I'd want to live.
2008-04-10 14:34 < ShakespeareFan00> Ah but , it's violent in that infilicts an assault against the hunger striker and the emotions of those aware of it
2008-04-10 14:34 < _kmh_> you can perform a hunger strike with or without ethics
2008-04-10 14:34 < treepie> Brandt was left without other options.
2008-04-10 14:34 < ShakespeareFan00> quanticle: You obviously don't read the hysterical leftie websites I do then... ;)
2008-04-10 14:34 < Working_Cat> ShakespeareFan00: its terrorism in much the same way suicide is.
2008-04-10 14:34 < scorchsaber_> ShakespeareFan00: If attacking the emotions of people is violence, there is no non-violent protest.
2008-04-10 14:35 < _kmh_> lol
2008-04-10 14:35 < Working_Cat> ShakespeareFan00: oh, and leaving behind a note blaming your enemies for your self-termination
2008-04-10 14:35 < Cyrius> just like osama bin laden! no other options!
2008-04-10 14:35 < ShakespeareFan00> scorchsaber: "Yor either with US or agsint US!"
2008-04-10 14:35 < _kmh_> attack of emotion is subjective
2008-04-10 14:35 < treepie> In order to be assault, I would have to physically prevent *someone else* with violence.
2008-04-10 14:35 < Cyrius> (yeah, I know, that was going too far)
2008-04-10 14:35 < snowolf> treepie: I hope you don't mind me saying, but I'm used to speak frankly. If you think seriously that Mr. Brandt makes constructive criticism, you're beyond caring for me ;-) (with all due respect). Mr. Brandt seems to love Wikipedia, or otherwise would have diverted his attention to more pressing problems that a bunch of idiots writing a website.
2008-04-10 14:35 < _kmh_> you can claim this discussion attacks your emotion or whatever
2008-04-10 14:35 < Krimpet> no, Brandt did escalate things in a completely inappropriate manner. the brouhaha with alison was unjustifiable
2008-04-10 14:35 < ShakespeareFan00> It was held in one UK cases that a sucide threat was a 'act of terror' due to political motives
2008-04-10 14:36 < quanticle> treepie: It just seems to me that you're making a mountain out of a molehill...
2008-04-10 14:36 < treepie> Daniel Brandt did not out Alison. Alison outed herself.
2008-04-10 14:36 < Working_Cat> ShakespeareFan00: threats of public self-immolation are too.
2008-04-10 14:36 < treepie> Alison, however, has really outed people, using Checkuser.
2008-04-10 14:36 < Mole2> Hey, stopp talking about molehills, it makes my speaker beep. :)
2008-04-10 14:36 < Cyrius> I love how this rambles around and around instead of addressing the actual subject
2008-04-10 14:36 < quanticle> treepie: Wikipedia is not a government. Jimbo Wales cannot tax you or put you in jail. Given that, why are you protesting against us, versus just moving on with your life?
2008-04-10 14:36 < ShakespeareFan00> Welcome to #Wikipedia
2008-04-10 14:36 < treepie> People escalate things because nothing else works.
2008-04-10 14:36 < snowolf> < _kmh_> you can perform a hunger strike with or without ethics <--- In italy there's a politician who goes on hunger and drinking strike every month or so, strangely he must weight way more than a hundred kilos
2008-04-10 14:36 < Working_Cat> heh, Mole2 Mountain
2008-04-10 14:37 < Krimpet> treepie: whoa whoa whoa... she "outed herself" how?
2008-04-10 14:37 < Working_Cat> Mole2Mountain rather
2008-04-10 14:37 < treepie> Some people may just roll over and let WP abuse them: Daniel Brandt does that.
2008-04-10 14:37 < _kmh_> snowolf : lol
2008-04-10 14:37 < ShakespeareFan00> Also as I understad the uK can techncialy cart hunger strikers off to the loony farm... with NO judical process needed :)
2008-04-10 14:37 < Cyrius> WP wouldn't care who Daniel Brandt is if he didn't make an ass of himself
2008-04-10 14:37 < treepie> Krimpet: Her name was already publicly available. Just run a whois on her personal website.
2008-04-10 14:37 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: Now that's another reason for me to not go to the UK. Any government that takes a suicide note as a terrorist threat is one that has lost its sanity.
2008-04-10 14:38 < _kmh_> snowolf : faithful people go on a hunger strike on yearly basis at least (ramadan, fastening, etc) :-P
2008-04-10 14:38 < Mole2> Working_Cat: :))
2008-04-10 14:38 < treepie> *Daniel Brandt does not. (Sorry, brain-starved and making typos.)
2008-04-10 14:38 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: Not really a strike.
2008-04-10 14:38 < Cyrius> snowolf: I'm reminded of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breatharian#Wiley_Brooks
2008-04-10 14:38 < snowolf> _kmh_: that I wasn't contesting ;-) But I honestly believe that it's one of the less useful methods of fighting
2008-04-10 14:38 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : well ....
2008-04-10 14:38 < Working_Cat> heh, my mom fasts 3 days a week. shes one harcore terrorist.
2008-04-10 14:38 < ShakespeareFan00> quanticle: Well they take hunger stikers away under Section 42 of the Mental Health Act - not under terror laws ( At least i used to be Section 42)
2008-04-10 14:38 < Ceiling_Cat> MAOR KATZ!
2008-04-10 14:38 < Krimpet> treepie: if you really don't have a problem with what Brandt did to Allie, I'm thinking you need to rethink your positions on this whole issue.
2008-04-10 14:39 < ShakespeareFan00> *can
2008-04-10 14:39 < Cyrius> if you think Brandt doesn't make an ass of himself, you've got blinders on
2008-04-10 14:39 < _kmh_> snowolf : well sure, whether it is useful or not depends on your goal and personal ethics i guess
2008-04-10 14:39 < snowolf> Cyrius: never heard of him before but LOOOOOOL
2008-04-10 14:39 < Working_Cat> quanticle: im sure the cases are sensibly applied laws.
2008-04-10 14:39 < ShakespeareFan00> Cyrius: Do you have any proof for you accusation?
2008-04-10 14:39 < Working_Cat> much like the ones here arent.
2008-04-10 14:39 < _kmh_> what did brandt do to allie ?
2008-04-10 14:39 < treepie> Krimpet: It was rude, yes, but it wasn't outing, and I feel it is defamatory to Brandt to call it outing. And Alison herself actually has outed people.
2008-04-10 14:39 < Cyrius> ShakespeareFan00: what, that brandt is an ass?
2008-04-10 14:39 < scorchsaber_> ShakespeareFan00: You can't prove that somebody is b eing an ass.
2008-04-10 14:39 < scorchsaber_> ShakespeareFan00: It's opinion, not fact.
2008-04-10 14:40 < ShakespeareFan00> On really?
2008-04-10 14:40 < scorchsaber_> One man's ass is another man's saint. :/
2008-04-10 14:40 < Cyrius> unless someone is in fact turning into a member of genus equus
2008-04-10 14:40 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : nothing but asses anyhow :)
2008-04-10 14:40 < Cyrius> then a genetic test could prove that
2008-04-10 14:40 < Working_Cat> Cyrius, scorchsaber_ , ShakespeareFan00 : no recursion.
2008-04-10 14:40 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : or if you want to put it this way : "it's all thesame ass"
2008-04-10 14:40 < scorchsaber_> Working_Cat: When did I recurse?
2008-04-10 14:40 < Krimpet> bleh, you've lost me. :/
2008-04-10 14:40 < ShakespeareFan00> "Round, Round the Wikipedia bush !"
2008-04-10 14:41 < ShakespeareFan00> "In and out off topic..."
2008-04-10 14:41 < ShakespeareFan00> " Thats the way the channel goes...."
2008-04-10 14:41 < ShakespeareFan00> "POP goes the user!"
2008-04-10 14:41 < Working_Cat> scorchsaber_: we had a "an opinion not a fact" argument just a lil while ago in the current main 'discussion'
2008-04-10 14:41 < Cyrius> ShakespeareFan00: a good start, but it needs more work
2008-04-10 14:41 < quanticle> Working_Cat: I guess. Perhaps the suicide note threatened a suicide bombing, or something like that.
2008-04-10 14:42 < treepie> Krimpet: Alison made her real name available on the whois record of her website. Various other personal information was also published on her website, by her. Her website is listed on a certain other website... however, on WR, she practically dared people to click on it, admitting it was her website, rather than deny it was her website, or make no comment.
2008-04-10 14:42 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: Now that is crazy. If I want to sacrifice myself with a hunger strike to protest something, I should be allowed to do so. Here in the US, I think it'd be covered by our right to petition the government...
2008-04-10 14:42 < Working_Cat> quanticle: something like that. i mean if someone says he'll commit suicide by jumping in front of the PM's speeding convoy...
2008-04-10 14:43 < treepie> Krimpet: Thus, Alison outed herself.
2008-04-10 14:43 < treepie> Krimpet: However, Alison actually has used Checkuser to out people, in the block log.
2008-04-10 14:43 < ShakespeareFan00> The reasonsing is that a suicide threat indicates that the person may have physciartic issuses,
2008-04-10 14:43 * Cyrius sighs
2008-04-10 14:43 < ShakespeareFan00> Section 42 IIRC is the means whereby they can send someon for 'assesment'
2008-04-10 14:43 < Cyrius> going round in circles, going round in circles
2008-04-10 14:43 < treepie> http://forum.encyc.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=80
2008-04-10 14:43 < ShakespeareFan00> In other words find out if they are nuts or not...
2008-04-10 14:44 < Krimpet> these pretzels are making me thirsty
2008-04-10 14:44 < treepie> ShakespeareFan00: By some definitions, it has to be active to be suicide. Hunger striking is passive.
2008-04-10 14:44 < treepie> Also, suicide is perfectly legal in some places.
2008-04-10 14:44 < Working_Cat> quanticle, ShakespeareFan00: not everyone threatening hunger strike is a nut. but some people are very clearly nuts.the law is for those people.
2008-04-10 14:44 * Ceiling_Cat sighs too
2008-04-10 14:45 < Ceiling_Cat> Someone asked me an extremely interesting question on my talk page
2008-04-10 14:45 < ShakespeareFan00> Wokring_Cat; The UK's mental health laws are a joke though
2008-04-10 14:45 < Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#If_editors_are_disrupting_WP.2C_why_are_they_not_sanctioned.3F
2008-04-10 14:45 < Working_Cat> IMO, suicide for lowlives ought to be legal. infact, encouraged.
2008-04-10 14:45 < Ceiling_Cat> Why don't we sanction people who constantly try to undermine oru science articles?
2008-04-10 14:45 < ShakespeareFan00> suicide itself shoudln't be illegal
2008-04-10 14:45 < Cyrius> Ceiling_Cat: because we're too busy persecuting our critics, obviously
2008-04-10 14:45 < quanticle> I guess the issue I have with those types of laws is that they can be interpreted to hold people under the guise of "mentally ill", even if those people are not a threat to others.
2008-04-10 14:46 < ShakespeareFan00> making violent threats is with good reason
2008-04-10 14:46 < Working_Cat> "we'll let you do XYZ if you promise to off yourself tomorrow"
2008-04-10 14:46 < ShakespeareFan00> quanticle: And peole the govt can label as 'mentally ill' even if it's a valid spirtual or politcal viewpoint
2008-04-10 14:46 < ShakespeareFan00> Look at Soviet Russia
2008-04-10 14:47 < Working_Cat> ShakespeareFan00: the difference lies in how the law is enforced.
2008-04-10 14:47 < treepie> Well, this is my fourth day of hunger strike, and no one has stopped me so far, so....
2008-04-10 14:48 < Krimpet> what I'd love to know is why the science articles are becoming a battleground on par with the worst nationalism quagmires. POV pushers on one end, arrogant holier-than-thou defenders on the other, and no end in sight
2008-04-10 14:48 < ShakespeareFan00> ME ponder the headline....
2008-04-10 14:48 < ShakespeareFan00> "Wikipedia killed my mother , because she wanted privacy...." :(
2008-04-10 14:48 < quanticle> treepie: Have your hunger strikes actually served to change policy on Wikipedia?
2008-04-10 14:49 < treepie> quanticle: This is my first hunger strike. And nothing else has worked.
2008-04-10 14:50 < Krimpet> treepie: honestly, if your positions on outing are just as inconsistent as those of those you oppose, you probably won't be taken seriously. sorry :(
2008-04-10 14:51 < quanticle> Krimpet: Its surprising, isn't it? You'd think that the science articles would be less controversial (apart from things like Evolution) just because there's less room for personal opinion in science.
2008-04-10 14:51 < treepie> Krimpet: I haven't outed anyone.
2008-04-10 14:51 < Krimpet> boy, these pretzels are making me thirsty
2008-04-10 14:51 < treepie> Krimpet: And how exactly do you think I've been inconsistent?
2008-04-10 14:51 * Pilotguy sets treepie's toes on fire
2008-04-10 14:52 < Cyrius> quanticle: you'd be wrong. there's loads of crazy people with lots of time for pushing their opinions
2008-04-10 14:52 < treepie> Look, it's completely hypocritical for WP's higher-ups to complain about things that *aren't even outing* (Alison published her own personal information on the internet, ergo, not outing), while at the same time outing people *using Checkuser info*, and refusing to Oversight outing that has *already* been used in threats of physical violence.
2008-04-10 14:53 < quanticle> Cyrius: Opinions, or discredited hypotheses?
2008-04-10 14:53 < Pilotguy> treepie: You're using TOR.
2008-04-10 14:53 * ShakespeareFan00 decides to take a break
2008-04-10 14:53 < Pilotguy> treepie: I'll say no more.
2008-04-10 14:53 < Cyrius> quanticle: opinions that they think are hypotheses that are being suppressed by the establishment
2008-04-10 14:53 < quanticle> Cyrius: Heh.
2008-04-10 14:53 * ShakespeareFan00 doesn't know the cabal handshake yes
2008-04-10 14:53 < treepie> Pilotguy: Just because I am using Tor doesn't mean I can't be outed.
2008-04-10 14:53 < ShakespeareFan00> ;)
2008-04-10 14:53 < ShakespeareFan00> *yet
2008-04-10 14:53 < Krimpet> treepie: this'll be my last comment on the subject, at the risk of taking another lap around this circular track... if you have a problem with IP addresses being published (a valid concern I totally agree with), but have no problem with the kinda stuff Brandt does, there's something inconsistent there. -_-
2008-04-10 14:54 < treepie> Pilotguy: There are ways of outing someone besides looking at their IP address.
2008-04-10 14:54 < Pilotguy> treepie: No shit :)
2008-04-10 14:54 < Pilotguy> treepie: You're better off using something like wikizine or mibbit
2008-04-10 14:54 < Cyrius> Krimpet: you've led me into a NASCAR metaphor
2008-04-10 14:54 < Pilotguy> treepie: Using TOR (in this channel) actually brings much more attention to yourself
2008-04-10 14:54 < treepie> Krimpet: I do have a problem with some of the things Brandt has done... but if you are going to criticise Brandt for outing, at least stick to cases when he *actually did* out people.
2008-04-10 14:54 < Pilotguy> treepie: Since we have to voice you
2008-04-10 14:55 < quanticle> treepie: I understand your point, but, I think the fact is that very few other care about this whole outing controversy.
2008-04-10 14:55 < ShakespeareFan00> And TOR is no gaurntee of anonymity
2008-04-10 14:55 < Pilotguy> treepie: And you're the only voiced user, out of 232
2008-04-10 14:55 < ShakespeareFan00> Node operators can and will be made to co-operate with law enforcment if needed
2008-04-10 14:55 < Pilotguy> treepie: You think that's not bringing attention to yourself, by being voiced?
2008-04-10 14:55 < treepie> ShakespeareFan00: But not using proxy is a guarantee of a lack of pseudonymity.
2008-04-10 14:56 < ShakespeareFan00> NO-ONE on the internt is Anonymous
2008-04-10 14:56 < treepie> Pilotguy: I am trying to get attention, in order to get the Oversight policy changed. And drawing attention to myself doesn't necessarily hurt my privacy.
2008-04-10 14:56 < quanticle> treepie: Anonymity on the Internet is a myth. Get used to it.
2008-04-10 14:56 < Pilotguy> treepie: By forcing yourself to be voiced on an IRC channel?
2008-04-10 14:57 < Pilotguy> treepie: Are you that fucking dumb?
2008-04-10 14:57 < quanticle> treepie: If you want true anonymity, unplug the network cable.
2008-04-10 14:57 < treepie> No, by going on hunger strike, and posting pictures.
2008-04-10 14:57 < treepie> The Tor is to protect my privacy. If that means I have to be voice, fine.
2008-04-10 14:57 < ShakespeareFan00> You are posting pictures of a shock nature to invoke a political response? :O
2008-04-10 14:57 < treepie> *voiced
2008-04-10 14:57 < Pilotguy> treepie: snort.
2008-04-10 14:57 < scorchsaber_> quanticle: Nah, there are plenty of ways to be pretty much anonymous to pretty much everybody.
2008-04-10 14:57 < Pilotguy> treepie: Like anyone will believe that
2008-04-10 14:58 < scorchsaber_> quanticle: Though I think all of the ones I've thought of so far are illegal.
2008-04-10 14:58 < quanticle> scorchsaber_: Well, anonymous to everyone who doesn't care, which is about as useful as being invisible to everyone who's not looking.
2008-04-10 14:58 < treepie> ShakespeareFan00: Well, sit-ins and picketing aren't exactly valid options over the internet.
2008-04-10 14:58 < quanticle> treepie: Hunger strikes aren't either.
2008-04-10 14:59 < ShakespeareFan00> There is whats called a mail-bomb but that's not legal
2008-04-10 14:59 < Pilotguy> treepie: Get a life
2008-04-10 14:59 < scorchsaber_> quanticle: No, I mean anonymous to pretty much everybody. As an example, you could use somebody else's computer.
2008-04-10 14:59 < treepie> Pilotguy: A violent thug threatened me in the name of WP.
2008-04-10 14:59 < scorchsaber_> Oh, hello somebody.
2008-04-10 14:59 < treepie> Pilotguy: I honestly believe WP is a threat to non-violent society.
2008-04-10 14:59 < ShakespeareFan00> treepie: So tell the police...
2008-04-10 14:59 < Pilotguy> treepie: Which is why you should get a life :)
2008-04-10 14:59 < scorchsaber_> treepie: People have threatened in the name of Ghandi.
2008-04-10 14:59 < quanticle> scorchsaber_: Yeah, you could use a library computer or something like that. It'd be a bit like using a pay phone to call in...
2008-04-10 15:00 < Working_Cat> scorchsaber_: *Gandhi
2008-04-10 15:00 < scorchsaber_> quanticle: No, I mean something like stealing somebody's library card, using it to use the library computer as them, and then sneaking it back into their house/wallet without them ever knowing.
2008-04-10 15:00 < Pilotguy> treepie: I hope you get help
2008-04-10 15:00 < Pilotguy> treepie: That's all I have to say
2008-04-10 15:00 < scorchsaber_> Working_Cat: Thank you.
2008-04-10 15:00 < Pilotguy> treepie: Go join wikipedia review
2008-04-10 15:00 < treepie> Pilotguy: People threatening to cut off the fingers of WP's critics *for the good of WP* is not acceptable.
2008-04-10 15:01 < scorchsaber_> quanticle: in a disguise, no less.
2008-04-10 15:01 < treepie> Done that.
2008-04-10 15:01 < Working_Cat> scorchsaber_: common mistake people outside india make :)
2008-04-10 15:01 < quanticle> treepie: If the threat is credible, call the police. If you don't trust the police, then getting threats from Wikipedia is the least of your worries.
2008-04-10 15:01 < scorchsaber_> treepie: And it's not WP's responsibility, either.
2008-04-10 15:01 < treepie> WP outed me.
2008-04-10 15:01 < Pilotguy> quanticle: The police don't care
2008-04-10 15:01 < treepie> AW used said outing.
2008-04-10 15:01 < treepie> The outing is WP's responsibility.
2008-04-10 15:01 < Pilotguy> treepie: No one cares
2008-04-10 15:01 < Working_Cat> quanticle: just what i said :D
2008-04-10 15:01 < scorchsaber_> Working_Cat: Yeah, sorry about that. :P
2008-04-10 15:01 < quanticle> Pilotguy: True, which is exactly my point.
2008-04-10 15:01 < treepie> This would've been entirely preventable, if WP had removed the information when I first asked them to.
2008-04-10 15:02 < quanticle> Working_Cat: Sometimes the point needs to be made more than once..
2008-04-10 15:02 < treepie> And I do not want to go through this again, and I don't want anyone else to go through it either.
2008-04-10 15:02 < ShakespeareFan00> So anyone care to assit in removing copyvio>?
2008-04-10 15:03 < Pilotguy> treepie: Go have dinner with Daniel Brandt, I hear he's available
2008-04-10 15:03 < _kmh_> treepie : what information ?
2008-04-10 15:03 < Cyrius> you know what, it's been three fucking hours
2008-04-10 15:03 < Pilotguy> treepie: Have a nice day :)
2008-04-10 15:03 < quanticle> Speaking of which, where is this "outing" page? I want to get some Streisand effects going here.
2008-04-10 15:03 < Pilotguy> quanticle: I wonder that too
2008-04-10 15:03 < Cyrius> nothing new is going to be said
2008-04-10 15:03 < Pilotguy> Cyrius: Yes, this is going in circles
2008-04-10 15:03 < _kmh_> treepie : i still haven't understodd what your actual problem is
2008-04-10 15:03 < Pilotguy> Cyrius: Most of us admittedly have things to do
2008-04-10 15:03 < quanticle> _kmh_: treepie's gone.
2008-04-10 15:04 < Gwern-away> using TOR isn't a problem. I'm using tor right now
2008-04-10 15:04 < Pilotguy> Gwern-away: Just need a cloak
2008-04-10 15:04 < quanticle> Anyway, I'm out. Its been... entertaining, actually.
2008-04-10 15:04 < Gwern-away> it's pretty rare for all tor logins to be blocked, which is the only time it comes up for me
2008-04-10 15:04 < _kmh_> quanticle : this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Watch ?
2008-04-10 15:04 < Pilotguy> quanticle: Yes, quite a time waster
2008-04-10 15:04 < Gwern-away> Pilotguy: true, but those aren't hard to get.
2008-04-10 15:04 < Pilotguy> Gwern-away: indeed
2008-04-10 15:05 < _kmh_> quanticle|away : oops not on my screeb
2008-04-10 15:05 < Pilotguy> _kmh_: They may be referring to hivemind
2008-04-10 15:05 < ShakespeareFan00> Is it permitted to promote other 'free' knwoledge projects in here?
2008-04-10 15:05 < Pilotguy> _kmh_: Not sure
2008-04-10 15:05 < Cyrius> promote? no
2008-04-10 15:05 < Pilotguy> ShakespeareFan00: If it's better than wikipedia :)
2008-04-10 15:05 < Cyrius> discuss? in moderation
2008-04-10 15:05 < Pilotguy> ShakespeareFan00: And every other free knowledge product is
2008-04-10 15:05 < ShakespeareFan00> It's not better than Wikipedia...
2008-04-10 15:05 < Gwern-away> the only problem is you need to do it beforehand, y'know. no point in using a non-anonymous account with your IP and everything and *then* trying to anonymize it
2008-04-10 15:05 < Cyrius> promotion is lame
2008-04-10 15:05 < ShakespeareFan00> OpenRailMap
2008-04-10 15:05 < Gwern-away> anonymity is like twincest virginity
2008-04-10 15:06 < ShakespeareFan00> an offshoot from OpenStreetMap
2008-04-10 15:06 < _kmh_> Pilotguy : well imho it always general and around a bush. at least i didn't treepie naming a concrete thing
2008-04-10 15:06 < Pilotguy> ShakespeareFan00: Keep telling yourself that :)
2008-04-10 15:06 < Cyrius> Gwern-away: I don't understand that metaphor and don't want to.
2008-04-10 15:06 < Gwern-away> he hee
2008-04-10 15:06 < Pilotguy> _kmh_: Yes, true
2008-04-10 15:06 < ShakespeareFan00> I was looking for someone to assist in mapping railway lines from 'open' maps
2008-04-10 15:06 * Gwern-away was about to say, it cannot be unlost
2008-04-10 15:07 < _kmh_> Pilotguy : i mean that people can publish defamatory stuff on wikipedia is fact, however that wikipedia tries to prevent that as well
2008-04-10 15:07 < ShakespeareFan00> _kmh_: Has thier ever yet been a legal case involving wikis thats got to court?
2008-04-10 15:07 < LawrenceWCohen> need a second opinion. after Bezhin Meadow, which of these should I try to FAC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_panic or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toadstone ?
2008-04-10 15:08 < _kmh_> and that wikipedia for structural reason cannot prevent such things from happening at all, is rather obvious as well imho
2008-04-10 15:08 < scorchsaber_> ShakespeareFan00: Gone to court, or been resolved in court (rather than a settlement or something)?
2008-04-10 15:08 < ShakespeareFan00> Gone to court as in reached the judge
2008-04-10 15:09 < _kmh_> ShakespeareFan00 : not that i'm aware of, but i don't follow the (english) wiki publicity or discussions closely, i mostly write articles or keep articles from being deleted
2008-04-10 15:09 < _kmh_> ShakespeareFan00 : and even that more on the german version than on the english
2008-04-10 15:10 < Cyrius> _kmh_: focus on writing/improving articles
2008-04-10 15:10 < Cyrius> that's of more value than all the political crap
2008-04-10 15:10 < cimon> _kmh_ that is valuble work...There are problems of maintainability that come with wikipedias size, but every little bit saved is good
2008-04-10 15:10 < _kmh_> Cyrius : sure and more interesting
2008-04-10 15:11 < Cyrius> "CAIRO, Egypt - An Egyptian court convicted five men Wednesday on charges of homosexual behavior and sentenced them to three years in prison, officials said."
2008-04-10 15:11 < Cyrius> yeah, Egypt, great choice for wikimania
2008-04-10 15:11 < Cyrius> "The five men were arrested in what human rights groups describe as a crackdown on people with the AIDS virus"
2008-04-10 15:11 < _kmh_> Cyrius : actually i've only started to pay attention at all after reading about/notocing about quuestionable deletion, which might be more of an issue in the german version (not sure)
2008-04-10 15:12 < _kmh_> Cyde : where ?
2008-04-10 15:13 < _kmh_> oops nvm overlooked the first part
2008-04-10 15:13 < cimon> There is stuff that is not so good in the US, but nobody raised a peep when we were in Harvard.
2008-04-10 15:13 < Cyrius> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_hiv_trial
2008-04-10 15:13 < Messedrocker> cimon, true
2008-04-10 15:13 < Messedrocker> well the US isn't a third-world country
2008-04-10 15:13 < _kmh_> cimon : we=?
2008-04-10 15:14 < scorchsaber_> Hey guys, if something is ruled as not notable enough for an article, and then something based on it becomes notable enough for a wikipedia article, does that also make the original thing notable, at least at some level of popularity for its child? I'm thinking of pieces of software right now-- say somebody creates a website, and then somebody else makes another website that is similar, but has more features, etc.,
2008-04-10 15:14 < scorchsaber_> Sorry again, somebody.
2008-04-10 15:14 < cimon> though locking down poor victims of AIDS is pretty despicable, they should give them treatment instead
2008-04-10 15:14 < kingturtle> gmorning
2008-04-10 15:15 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : i'd say it provides for a reevaluation of the notability of the first thing
2008-04-10 15:15 < cimon> herro
2008-04-10 15:15 < kingturtle> heh :)
2008-04-10 15:15 < scorchsaber_> cimon: I dunno. How different is it to quarantining people with other diseases?
2008-04-10 15:15 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : anyhow notability is subject to change over time
2008-04-10 15:15 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: Alright, fair enough. Thanks.
2008-04-10 15:16 < cimon> scorchsaber_, you quarantine, when the disease is easy to catch. Aids is not easy to catch...
2008-04-10 15:16 < Working_Cat> quanticle: yeah. we'd have moved on to discussing memes a long time ago if my point had been taken the first time it was made :P
2008-04-10 15:16 < cimon> or easy and easy, I suppose sex isn't all that difficult, but you know what I mean...
2008-04-10 15:17 < scorchsaber_> cimon: The problem is how many people tend to wilfully give it to others.
2008-04-10 15:18 < _kmh_> cimon : you sure, sometimes i get the feeling it seems to be a lifelong problem for people :)
2008-04-10 15:18 < scorchsaber_> I'm not convinced that quarantining AIDS victims is some absolute evil.
2008-04-10 15:18 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : i am
2008-04-10 15:18 < scorchsaber_> In at least some places, it may be justified. For instance, cultures where it is believed that having sex witha virgin will get rid of your AIDS.
2008-04-10 15:18 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : no it is not
2008-04-10 15:19 < scorchsaber_> Why not?
2008-04-10 15:19 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : and imho it is a clear human rights violation
2008-04-10 15:19 < scorchsaber_> Isn't the whole point of a quarantine to limit the damage?
2008-04-10 15:19 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: In that case, so is a quarantine.
2008-04-10 15:19 < cimon> scorchsaber_, I know that some people do that, and that is despicable too, and people who willingly spread it, deserve to got the book thrown at themmm
2008-04-10 15:19 < kingturtle> quarantining AIDS victims? are you crazy? it isn't an airborne disease
2008-04-10 15:19 < scorchsaber_> Human rights aren't absolute, they end where others' begin.
2008-04-10 15:19 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : quarantine is an exceptional measure against highly contagious diseases which Aids is not
2008-04-10 15:20 * The359 only drinks bleach to prevent having AIDS
2008-04-10 15:20 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : yes and individual aids infected person is not damaging anybody else (just by having aids)
2008-04-10 15:20 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : hence no justification for quarantine or separation
2008-04-10 15:20 < cimon> scorchsaber_, Tehere was one black guy here in finland, who gave it to some 50 women, including one of my sisters friends. Really despicable...
2008-04-10 15:21 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: Fair enough.
2008-04-10 15:21 < Working_Cat> \o/ another bug bites the dust
2008-04-10 15:21 < scorchsaber_> What about a ban on sex for AIDS victims?
2008-04-10 15:21 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : why ?
2008-04-10 15:21 < scorchsaber_> Would that be more equivalent?
2008-04-10 15:21 < Cyde> As penance?
2008-04-10 15:21 < cimon> rubbers work fine
2008-04-10 15:21 < scorchsaber_> cimon: Not fine enough.
2008-04-10 15:22 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : the thing you could/should possibly mandate in consent
2008-04-10 15:22 * Ceiling_Cat had an entire semester course on computational immunology
2008-04-10 15:22 < Ceiling_Cat> it turned into a class about AIDS
2008-04-10 15:22 < Working_Cat> Cyde: not all victims have aids because of their fault.
2008-04-10 15:22 < Ceiling_Cat> everything about it
2008-04-10 15:22 < cimon> if one is not enough, wear two rubbers...
2008-04-10 15:22 < Working_Cat> Cyde: infact, most of them dont
2008-04-10 15:22 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : but there is no reason to interfere in a case with consent
2008-04-10 15:22 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: Perhaps. Am I allowed to consent to move to a quarantined area? If so, sure.
2008-04-10 15:22 < The359> if you banned sex with AIDS victims, you'd ruin all the Poz parties
2008-04-10 15:22 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: But that should require full disclosure.
2008-04-10 15:23 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : again Aids is _not_ highly contagious
2008-04-10 15:23 < scorchsaber_> A person shouldn't be able to "accidentally" move into a quarantined area. :/
2008-04-10 15:23 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: It is when sex is involved.
2008-04-10 15:23 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : and does consent allow you to damage yourself - yes it does
2008-04-10 15:23 < The359> can't kill yourself
2008-04-10 15:23 < The359> technically
2008-04-10 15:23 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: Only if you know you're damaging yourself, though.
2008-04-10 15:24 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : actually it is not even highly contagious when sex is involved strictly speaking, more importantly nobody is forced to have sex
2008-04-10 15:24 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: Are you kidding me?'
2008-04-10 15:24 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : well consent assume knowledge
2008-04-10 15:24 < cimon> mandatory screening for risk groups might be another thing that helps. at least that way you wouldn't be innnocently spreading it
2008-04-10 15:24 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : that's why i was talking about consent
2008-04-10 15:24 < Pilotguy> STOP TALKING ABOUT SEX
2008-04-10 15:24 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: Rape is "being forced to have sex"
2008-04-10 15:24 < Pilotguy> Schroeder is not here to join us
2008-04-10 15:24 < scorchsaber_> _kmh_: Fair enough.
2008-04-10 15:25 < scorchsaber_> Pilotguy: I didn't know sex was banned on the wikipedia channel.
2008-04-10 15:25 < scorchsaber_> I'd figured it would be allowed considering how much of it there is on Wikipedia itself. Sorry about that.
2008-04-10 15:25 < scorchsaber_> er, not sex, but talking about sex* :P
2008-04-10 15:25 < _kmh_> scorchsaber_ : well we are discussing aids nor rape. rape is illegal and subject to jailtime/isolation in any case (with ot without aids)
2008-04-10 15:25 < kim_bruning> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#SERIOUSLY_good_questions
2008-04-10 15:25 < Pilotguy> scorchsaber_: It is until Schroeder gets here
2008-04-10 15:25 < cimon> kim_bruning, btw, the dutch wikipedias user interface is pretty funny
2008-04-10 15:25 < Pilotguy> scorchsaber_: So until then, no sex discussions
2008-04-10 15:26 < cimon> "overleg"
2008-04-10 15:26 < kim_bruning> cimon, LOL
2008-04-10 15:26 < kim_bruning> cimon, I do see
2008-04-10 15:26 < scorchsaber_> Pilotguy: That doesn't make any sense. Is that a joke?
2008-04-10 15:26 < kim_bruning> cimon, I don't use nlwiki much
2008-04-10 15:26 < _kmh_> Pilotguy . wikipedia is full of sex though :)
2008-04-10 15:26 < scorchsaber_> Pilotguy: I don't mean it in a bad way, I just can't tell if you're joking.
2008-04-10 15:26 < kim_bruning> cimon, comment on the seriously good questions? :-)
2008-04-10 15:26 < ShakespeareFan00> Wikipedia needs to cleanup the sex articles
2008-04-10 15:26 < ShakespeareFan00> :(
2008-04-10 15:26 < Pilotguy> scorchsaber_: No.
2008-04-10 15:26 < scorchsaber_> Especially since Schroeder is generally considered a troll from what I've seen.
2008-04-10 15:27 < kim_bruning> ShakespeareFan00, need to make them all featured?
2008-04-10 15:27 < _kmh_> Pilotguy : from scientific articles on reproduction to porn stars - it's all in there :)
2008-04-10 15:27 < Pilotguy> _kmh_: {{sofixit}}
2008-04-10 15:27 < scorchsaber_> I guess not on #wikipedia
2008-04-10 15:27 < _kmh_> Pilotguy : nothing to fix there
2008-04-10 15:27 < Ceiling_Cat> MAOR KATZ!
2008-04-10 15:27 < ShakespeareFan00> kim-Bruning: With appropriate citations to credible journals , why not
2008-04-10 15:27 < cimon> kim_bruning, another oddity is the french wikipedia, i just only now saw thet the french wikipedia interface hasn't translated the login message. A pretty glaring omission...
2008-04-10 15:27 < kim_bruning> ShakespeareFan00, scary thought... but we know it will happen
2008-04-10 15:27 < kim_bruning> cimon, Heh! maybe they never log in... will you fix it?
2008-04-10 15:28 < cimon> kim_bruning, don't speak french good enough...
2008-04-10 15:28 < Ceiling_Cat> who removed 2000 FAs from teh topic?