From WB. Emphasis added.



WP needs more people like Random832.

You're surprised that wikien-l version 2.0 isn't all that much better than version 1?

No, I surprised by the presence of an ethical comment. I was not
expecting any ethical comments. But there it is, not 0 ethical
comments, but 1! Isn't it amazing!?!?

Granted, there are a few ethical people over there, but they tend
to be blind to the immorality going on about them, so they do not
tend to consider ethics, rather taking ethics for granted, despite
the lack of ethics.

Ethics isn't an option for an enterprise that hopes to have a sustainable future.

Well, most at least fake it.

Acting blatantly immoral can get one bad publicity.
I have no idea how WP has managed to avoid
getting more bad publicity than it does.

WP can survive bad publicity because it's not an essential utility or public service. It's like any other kind of low-cost optional entertainment -- people can take it or leave it.

I'm sure it can survive bad publicity, but you'd
expect a decrease in new editors, at least.

The thing is, it doesn't have very much negative publicity. There are only two times I've seen Wikipedia mentioned negatively in mainstream news: one during the Essjay scandal, and a little bit during the Carolyn Doran thing. When it takes someone blatantly fabricating their identity or hiring a felon to get significant negative publicity, there's a problem.

There are much worse things in the world than fabricating an
identity. Stealing someone else's identity is an entirely different
matter, of course, but just fabricating a new one... well, I think
of all those women writers who used male pseudonyms to avoid
sexism and actually be heard. And Essjay did a lot of good, too.

Anyway, are the privacy violations and defamation so common
that they aren't newsworthy?

Well, I suppose the victims might very well not want them in the
news... and how many journalists could get away with not giving
the details? : (

WP can even survive even if it devolves to little more than a diatribe-laden blog written by no more than a dozen surviving cabalists. What happens, of course is that its influence simply wanes as it loses its best editors.

I have had it up to here ↑ with this nonsense that equates privacy with anonymity.

The biggest threat to our personal privacy and security in the Wiki(a)pedia context is NOT a threat TO anonymous writers, BUT a threat FROM anonymous writers.

Jon Awbrey

A small number of bloggers were able to leverage Google's PageRank so that "Miserable Failure" linked to WhiteHouse.Gov. Wikia Search will very likely be even more susceptible to that kind of "Google Bomb".

I'm not flaming you. I'm flaming the AW gang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Handel_Richardson

Would she refer to Jayjg's activities this directly, or is there someone else?

I don't think she'd say anything if she thought anyone would
figure out who she was talking about. Ms. SV is pretty good
with confidentiality, in my experience.

Unless, of course, it's not meant to be a secret.

P.S. Thanks, Viridae. : )

But I think it is consistent with her pathology that she would be prone to "oopses" that "accidentally" remind people who are not toeing the line as she thinks they should that she has the goods on them. It could be that Jayjg's "wikibreak" left her feeling that he hadn't delivered as promised for her. Or more likely, she could have thought the comment was removed enough from WP that no one would connect it to a particular person.

I think we may reasonably surmise that the editor to whom she was referring is someone who edits in a manner of which she approves, else she would have summarily banned him as a "troll." Now, it could be that the editor works in an area that is not one that she also biases edits, but in that case I would doubt that she would know of the editor's apparent conflict of interest; if she did, then it would likely be something that the editor in question did not actively conceal, and, if not Ms. Mack, someone would have thrown a penalty flag [insert link to Greg Kohs saga]. So I think we may reasonably surmise that the editor probably works in an area where she also edits actively, and that he edits from a perspective with which she agrees. The subjects that she gets involved with are Israel/Judaism/"anti-terrorism," animal rights, and philosophy (are there others?). Of these, only the first clearly has "an organization that has a very strong POV in that area" that would pay someone to "to create and maintain online resources" about the subject in question, and that agrees with the perspective that Linda Mack also promotes. Proctor Gambel may, though I highly doubt it, put some effort into defending its animal testing online, but they would be opposed to the Linda Mack position. PETA might want to do such a thing, but I doubt they have the resources, and even if they did they'd probably better serve their cause by enlisting volunteers for such things; no need to pay a consultant to get out the position that Fluffy the lab rabbit should be set free to feed the foxes.

Jayjg probably is not the only editor on WP "who is paid to create and maintain online resources about" Israel/Judaism, and who "is paid by an organization that has a very strong POV in that area," but there is very little doubt that he is such a person, and Linda Mack certainly has a history of collaborating with him. Would he reveal enough of his identity to her that she would be able, with certainty, to make such a statement about him? Probably, because Jimbo and ArbCom, on which Jayjg once served, would seem to have to know who he is. What would be the additional cost of having an uber-admin who supports his position anyway know this as well?

There are many, many ethical wikipedians, of course.

The problem is that, just like everywhere, ethical people don't get into positions of power.

The exercise of power over others — especially without their consent — is an unethical practice.

yeah, except when she's forwarding Judd Bagley's evidence of sockpuppetry against Gary Weiss to Gary Weiss under the false pretext of an off-wiki confidential NPOV admin review. Then, not so much.

You are right, of course. However, it seems the majority of
ethical WP members are not interested in meta debates, and
even fewer get into positions where they can do much good.
So, out of those participating in meta debates, and those in
positions to do significant good or bad, few are ethical, and
most of those that are are blind to the immorality around them.




Power can be used for other things, too, like helping people.
Anything high-profile would most likely put the powerful
ethical WP person at risk of losing his or her power, but there
are low-profile good things that powerful ethical WP people
can do. Removing deleting negative bios of relatively low
notability subjects, getting defamatory material and personal
information removed when no one is looking, listening
thoughtfully to unblock requests, trying to settle disputes in
an amicable manner before they escalate beyond the stage
where that is possible, etc.

Of course, each person has his or her own idea of what
is ethical, but so many people on WP don't even think in
ethical terms. They've replaced morality with power-play and
worship of a non-sentient, non-thinking, non-feeling website.

The highest rung on the Kohlberg-Gilligan Seven-Stage Ladder of Moral and Ethical Reasoning is The Ethics of Care.


Bravo. That's a laudable example of the Ethics of Care.

Doc's always been a good egg. He strikes me as someone who is embarassed by "all of the general nonsense", and probably won't stay in for the long hall a la Bishonen (though probably without the attack aspect of her departure).

The kind of ethical leadership that Doc Glasgow might provide is sorely needed throughout the upper echelons of the organization.

Fair enough, but eggs don't achieve much. They have to hatch.