http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/087488.html
[WikiEN-l] Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.
Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk
Sun Dec 16 14:16:57 UTC 2007
You, Sarah or Linda or whatever the hell your name is, can keep well out of this. Just because I fucked over your little backdoors clique in the full light of day does not give you the right to follow me around chucking dung from the sidelines.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:30:03 -0600
> From: slimvirgin at gmail.com
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.
>
> joshua.zelinsky wrote:
> Quoting SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com>:
> > Moreschi, it's a good question. You were keen enough to broadcast on
> > this list details of a private mailing list, together with your
> > opinion on who is and isn't a liar, seeing it as your moral
> > responsibility to involve yourself. So when you discovered something
> > very serious about a Foundation employee who had briefly occupied a
> > fairly senior position, why wouldn't you drop a quiet note to Jimbo,
> > just to make sure he knew what you had found out? Even if you thought
> > he maybe knew about some or all of it, why wouldn't you want to make
> > sure?
> >
> I'm also perplexed not only by the failure to tell Jimbo but by the failure to
> tell anyone else. Maybe I'm just a stuck-up self-righteous snot but I would
> have first gone to Jimbo and if he had known would have demanded disclosure by
> the Foundation. Even if you thought that Jimbo already knew about it why not
> let others know as well?
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> That's a better question...
> -----------------
>
> That's why I compared Moreschi's silence over this with his
> broadcasting of the private mailing lists and who he assumed was
> "lying." Yet with this thing, he feels no responsibility to tell Jimbo
> -- and it makes no sense to argument that he thought Jimbo knew
> *exactly* the same things that Moreschi says he discovered, because
> what possible reason would he have for assuming that? -- and, Jimbo
> aside, also feels no responsibility to alert the community. I hope
> he'll explain why he had such a different attitude to the two issues.
>
> Sarah
gerard, he of the "fuck off, <insert your name here>" hall of fame, bans Morechi for using the word.
on 12/16/07 9:22 AM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:
>
> You'll be pleased to know I've just kicked Christiano from the list.
> Play nice or go home, kids.
Oh, the ironical irony.
Full Version: Slim - Moreschi - Wiki Smack Down !!
I wonder if Slim will get the Durova treatment this time around as it dawns on the powers that be that she is more of a liability than an asset?
We'll see. A year ago, the Slim protectors would be swarming around. She looks more exposed this year as people are wiser to her ways.
We'll see. A year ago, the Slim protectors would be swarming around. She looks more exposed this year as people are wiser to her ways.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:28pm) 
I wonder if Slim will get the Durova treatment this time around as it dawns on the powers that be that she is more of a liability than an asset?
We'll see. A year ago, the Slim protectors would be swarming around. She looks more exposed this year as people are wiser to her ways.
well stated.
The newest "he's stalking poor slim sexy me!!" tactic instance in a content debate with Tim "The Vicar" Vickers shows that Slimmy hasn't learned anything from her old ways, except that it pays.
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 16th December 2007, 6:26pm)
gerard, he of the "fuck off, <insert your name here>" hall of fame, bans Morechi for using the word.
The crucial "word", I'd think, was probably not "fuck" but "Linda".
Bravo to this...
The above would make an excellent WR editorial, too.
QUOTE(Dan Tobias on WikiEN-l)
Subject: The Wikipedia critics' perfect storm
Lately there has been a whole series of controversies, scandals, and the like which have led to negative publicity for Wikipedia. In the middle of all that, Google announced a (vaporware so far) project to which got some press as an alleged "Wikipedia-killer". From the media reaction to all this, it is very clear that Wikipedia's honeymoon is long over. A few years ago, the media, blogosphere, general public, and the ranks of Wikipedians themselves were full of people in their initial bloom of enthusiasm over how fantastically Wikipedia had succeeded in such a short time through a method of collective authorship that it seemed in theory couldn't possibly work. Then, the critics were in the minority and were easy to dismiss as people who "just don't get new media", or who had conflicts of interest or personal grudges of some sort that impaired their objective judgment. The pro-Wikipedia crowd had a genuine enthusiasm that was catching, and the anti-Wikipedia crowd was just an ugly bunch of party-poopers.
Now, everything is different. A victim of its own success, Wikipedia is now part of the "establishment", a major part of the world's information infrastructure rather than a neat little geeky project. Just about everybody in and out of it has moved on from their wave of enthusiasm to be jaded and cynical. The insiders circle their wagons against "attackers" and try to blame everything on trolls and harassers and banned users and attack sites and irresponsible reporters and pernicious memes and so on. The outsiders find it's more interesting and newsworthy to find and expose problems with Wikipedia than to talk about how great it is. Even a few Wikipedia-related bloggers who have previously stayed away from, denounced, or downplayed all of the "wikidrama" of previous internal controversies are now starting to sound alarms about how things are getting so bad that major change is needed:
http://original-research.blogspot.com/
http://wikip.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately, some of the commentary they're drawing is just more of the same insider reactions: to kill the messenger by denouncing them as irresponsible rumor-mongers (even though these are actually people who have largely sided with the establishment before against the drama-queens and sensationalists). This sort of reaction may have worked a while back when the critics were a small minority, but it won't work now. Even if some amount of the criticism is still overblown and unfounded, it is necessary to constructively engage the critics instead of dismissing or attacking them, or else the problems will keep getting worse in a never-ending spiral.
--
== Dan ==
Lately there has been a whole series of controversies, scandals, and the like which have led to negative publicity for Wikipedia. In the middle of all that, Google announced a (vaporware so far) project to which got some press as an alleged "Wikipedia-killer". From the media reaction to all this, it is very clear that Wikipedia's honeymoon is long over. A few years ago, the media, blogosphere, general public, and the ranks of Wikipedians themselves were full of people in their initial bloom of enthusiasm over how fantastically Wikipedia had succeeded in such a short time through a method of collective authorship that it seemed in theory couldn't possibly work. Then, the critics were in the minority and were easy to dismiss as people who "just don't get new media", or who had conflicts of interest or personal grudges of some sort that impaired their objective judgment. The pro-Wikipedia crowd had a genuine enthusiasm that was catching, and the anti-Wikipedia crowd was just an ugly bunch of party-poopers.
Now, everything is different. A victim of its own success, Wikipedia is now part of the "establishment", a major part of the world's information infrastructure rather than a neat little geeky project. Just about everybody in and out of it has moved on from their wave of enthusiasm to be jaded and cynical. The insiders circle their wagons against "attackers" and try to blame everything on trolls and harassers and banned users and attack sites and irresponsible reporters and pernicious memes and so on. The outsiders find it's more interesting and newsworthy to find and expose problems with Wikipedia than to talk about how great it is. Even a few Wikipedia-related bloggers who have previously stayed away from, denounced, or downplayed all of the "wikidrama" of previous internal controversies are now starting to sound alarms about how things are getting so bad that major change is needed:
http://original-research.blogspot.com/
http://wikip.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately, some of the commentary they're drawing is just more of the same insider reactions: to kill the messenger by denouncing them as irresponsible rumor-mongers (even though these are actually people who have largely sided with the establishment before against the drama-queens and sensationalists). This sort of reaction may have worked a while back when the critics were a small minority, but it won't work now. Even if some amount of the criticism is still overblown and unfounded, it is necessary to constructively engage the critics instead of dismissing or attacking them, or else the problems will keep getting worse in a never-ending spiral.
--
== Dan ==
The above would make an excellent WR editorial, too.
And the discussion has of course gone to "Prior good behavior does not excuse incivility!"
I need to make a huge MONGO stick, and start whacking everyone who lies about that principle being their reason.
I need to make a huge MONGO stick, and start whacking everyone who lies about that principle being their reason.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 16th December 2007, 6:53pm)
And the discussion has of course gone to "Prior good behavior does not excuse incivility!"
I need to make a huge MONGO stick, and start whacking everyone who lies about that principle being their reason.
To be fair, it was an extremely uncivil comment, but certainly David Gerard is in no position to punish anyone for incivility.
QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:57am)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 16th December 2007, 6:53pm)
And the discussion has of course gone to "Prior good behavior does not excuse incivility!"
I need to make a huge MONGO stick, and start whacking everyone who lies about that principle being their reason.
To be fair, it was an extremely uncivil comment, but certainly David Gerard is in no position to punish anyone for incivility.
My problem is solely with his pretending that he would do the same thing to anyone who made such a comment. There's no inherent problem with what he did.
Draconian thuggery is an incivil act, too.
BRITIAN AND ITALY ARE AT WAR?
QUOTE[WikiEN-l] Former Wikimedia employee was a felon.
Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk
Sun Dec 16 14:16:57 UTC 2007
You, Sarah or Linda or whatever the hell your name is, can keep well out of this. Just because I fucked over your little backdoors clique in the full light of day does not give you the right to follow me around chucking dung from the sidelines.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Where = 1 Giano + 1 Christaiano = ITALY
QUOTE
> -----------------
>
> That's why I compared Moreschi's silence over this with his
> broadcasting of the private mailing lists and who he assumed was
> "lying." Yet with this thing, he feels no responsibility to tell Jimbo
> -- and it makes no sense to argument that he thought Jimbo knew
> *exactly* the same things that Moreschi says he discovered, because
> what possible reason would he have for assuming that? -- and, Jimbo
> aside, also feels no responsibility to alert the community. I hope
> he'll explain why he had such a different attitude to the two issues.
>
> Sarah
gerard, he of the "fuck off, <insert your name here>" hall of fame, bans Morechi for using the word.
on 12/16/07 9:22 AM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:
>
> You'll be pleased to know I've just kicked Christiano from the list.
> Play nice or go home, kids.
WHAT SAYS THE UNITED STATES ABOUT THIS UK-IT DEBACLE????
QUOTE> joshua.zelinsky wrote: Maybe I'm just a stuck-up self-righteous snot
I wonder if Jimmy's hare brained idea to make a search engine to "compete" with Google is what led Google to probably toss $50,000,000 into Knol.
"Jimmy, we like you, but you're a fucktard. Why'd you have to fuck with US?"
"Jimmy, we like you, but you're a fucktard. Why'd you have to fuck with US?"
I'm sure they don't like him. Most people don't unless they are his nearest subordinates.
He's quite a rude fellow. And in embarassingly accidental ways.
He's quite a rude fellow. And in embarassingly accidental ways.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:28am)
I wonder if Slim will get the Durova treatment this time around as it dawns on the powers that be that she is more of a liability than an asset?
We'll see. A year ago, the Slim protectors would be swarming around. She looks more exposed this year as people are wiser to her ways.
I doubt it, Durova was a pretty inept game player. She only had a couple of cronies, while SlimVirgin still has her protective phalanx, what's missing this time around are the crowds of suck-ups and brownosers who act as the enablers. Durova is completely compromised, while SlimVirgin is weakened but still in the fight.
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Sun 16th December 2007, 6:16pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 16th December 2007, 9:28am)
I wonder if Slim will get the Durova treatment this time around as it dawns on the powers that be that she is more of a liability than an asset?
We'll see. A year ago, the Slim protectors would be swarming around. She looks more exposed this year as people are wiser to her ways.
I doubt it, Durova was a pretty inept game player. She only had a couple of cronies, while SlimVirgin still has her protective phalanx, what's missing this time around are the crowds of suck-ups and brownosers who act as the enablers. Durova is completely compromised, while SlimVirgin is weakened but still in the fight.
Besides, Slim has enough self-control to edit with Crum 375 or some SweetnewSock™ until the heat dials down. Durova hadn't kept silent for but a few hours (to sleep perhaps ( and she's on every administrative action since she was desysopped, which has lost her a lot of street cred. That's why WAS 4250 is babysitting her. PIty.
Also, Durova's main crony, JeHochman was even more selfish than she was - poor Durova thought he was loyal like her and she was wrong- she's too loyal to the wrong person(s) and for all the wrong reasons (blind faith in fame), so she mistook JH for the same. It was a mistake.
Not to mention that this isn't Slim's first rodeo.
Wikipedia isn't even her first rodeo.
Durova? First.
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 16th December 2007, 12:26pm)
lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087488.html
QUOTE(Christiano Moreschi @ 16 Dec 2007 UTC 14:16)
[WikiEN-l] Former Wikimedia Employee Was A Felon
Christiano Moreschi <…>
16 Dec 2007 UTC 14:16
You, Sarah or Linda or whatever the hell your name is, can keep well out of this. Just because I fucked over your little backdoors clique in the full light of day does not give you the right to follow me around chucking dung from the sidelines.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Pretty ballsy for a castrato …
Jonny
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:53pm)
And the discussion has of course gone to "Prior good behavior does not excuse incivility!"
I need to make a huge MONGO stick, and start whacking everyone who lies about that principle being their reason.
"Lies" is right. I can recall only a handful of people who truly were banned from anywhere for incivility, none of whom were administrators or prominent users, and all of whom were remarkably more uncivil than anything seen here. Everywhere else, it's a charge which stands in for an unstated something else which is not against any rules (talking back to an administrator, general contrarianism, etc.); its main function is to ensure that all but the most self-controlled users can be punished at any time without stating the real reason.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.