Heard Privatemusings on Triple J this fternoon, on the Hack current affairs programs. In addition there was the head of the Australian Wikimedia chapter (no idea who that is) and an Australian Arbcom member who is also a psychologist - he gave his name but not his username.
Ooh, did he mention us? Did he mention us? Did he mention us? 
How many ArbCom members are Australian psychologists? Can't be more than a dozen or so, surely...?
Also, I assume you're referring to this fine programme:
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/
QUOTE(Viridae @ Thu 19th March 2009, 2:32am) 
In addition there was the head of the Australian Wikimedia chapter (no idea who that is) and an Australian Arbcom member who is also a psychologist - he gave his name but not his username.
How many ArbCom members are Australian psychologists? Can't be more than a dozen or so, surely...?
Also, I assume you're referring to this fine programme:
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/
Good work, PrivateMusings.
That Liam Wyatt guy (Witty lama (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) doesn't 'alf talk some tosh. When asked whether the online fights between users are a good thing or a bad thing, he states unequivocally that they "make Wikipedia". And reels off a list of benign disputes - ignoring some of the really nasty stuff that has gone on. In fact, no one comes close to touching on the key issue of Wikipedia, the defamation and general culture of bullying. These aspects might "make" Wikipedia, but they are not a good thing. WP apologists are simply blind to this. Caught up in their reconstructed Wiki-Love version that doesn't bear serious scrutiny.
Cas Liber Casliber (T-C-L-K-R-D) is the arbitrator interviewed.
Probably not worth listening to for anyone familiar with the Real Wikipedia (as opposed to the oft-touted egalitarian fantasy model).
(mods - can this thread get a relevant title please?)
That Liam Wyatt guy (Witty lama (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) doesn't 'alf talk some tosh. When asked whether the online fights between users are a good thing or a bad thing, he states unequivocally that they "make Wikipedia". And reels off a list of benign disputes - ignoring some of the really nasty stuff that has gone on. In fact, no one comes close to touching on the key issue of Wikipedia, the defamation and general culture of bullying. These aspects might "make" Wikipedia, but they are not a good thing. WP apologists are simply blind to this. Caught up in their reconstructed Wiki-Love version that doesn't bear serious scrutiny.
Cas Liber Casliber (T-C-L-K-R-D) is the arbitrator interviewed.
Probably not worth listening to for anyone familiar with the Real Wikipedia (as opposed to the oft-touted egalitarian fantasy model).
(mods - can this thread get a relevant title please?)
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 19th March 2009, 3:20am)
(mods - can this thread get a relevant title please?)
Okay, done. Maybe it belongs in the "News Worth Discussing" forum too, actually...?
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 19th March 2009, 4:20am)
In fact, no one comes close to touching on the key issue of Wikipedia, the defamation and general culture of bullying.
Because commentary is always misguided if it doesn't at least touch on your particular pet peeves and favorite memes and tropes.
They should have devoted the entire show to discussing the BADSITES policy... with maybe a few digressions about how some of the Wikipedia criticism sites illogically use .com domains when they're noncommercial.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 19th March 2009, 6:43am)
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 19th March 2009, 4:20am)
In fact, no one comes close to touching on the key issue of Wikipedia, the defamation and general culture of bullying.
Because commentary is always misguided if it doesn't at least touch on your particular pet peeves and favorite memes and tropes.
Funny that real people exist outside of Wikipedia and might be concerned about the impact the site has on their lives is now reduced to a "meme."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.