http://civilination.org/news/about-2/board-of-directors/

Share your stories of online hostility on this website, and see if Jimbo is hostile toward your story.

That is one sparse and harsh looking site. All those red, black and white blocks. It screams Nazism.

The gutter press offer a few stale anecdotes about the founders of the up-and-coming marching care-bear project.

This looks very Randroidish to me.

I think it would be best for anyone who has had an "incivil" encounter on Wikipedia to report it on their comments thread. I'm sure they'll all be deleted, but the point will be made, nonetheless.

Is that their solution to the civility problem? Dinner and a movie, then maybe back to the condo for let's-just-see-how-it-goes? That's not "civility," that's "nookie." Two different things.

Back in 2006, the co-founder of a popular website publicly announced that my approach to the site (one he had helped shape) was “deeply unethical and inappropriate”, and he deleted an article that I had authored and mentioned online. Even though it wasn’t written for payment, and the subject company wasn’t even aware of the article, the co-founder mistakenly assumed it was paid content and thusly labeled it “corporate spam”. Then he indefinitely blocked my user account on the popular website, so that it could not edit any more. Some hours later, the co-founder returned to the popular website to further blast my article, calling it a “travesty of NPOV [neutral point of view]” and “corporate fluff”.

It took him about two years to finally work up the courage to publicly apologize to me for how poorly he handled the situation.

(Your comment is awaiting moderation.)

This whole thread reminded me to check up on one of Jimbo's other projects.

Worked for John and Yoko.

By making a donation today, you are supporting CiviliNation’s efforts to create an online culture in which individuals can fully engage and contribute without fear or threat of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment, or lies.

The sheer, unbridled arrogance, hypocrisy, narcissism, and utter lack of self-awareness being displayed by Mr. Wales and Ms. Weckerle here are... well, totally predictable and par for the course, actually!

The thing is, on Wikipedia, accusing someone else of failing to be civil is, itself, considered a "civility violation." Wikipedia doesn't have a civil or civilized community, what they have is enforced civility, and the people enforcing it are usually 15-year-olds who are given ban-buttons and precious little else with which to do it. Meanwhile, the current motto on Ms. Weckerle's personal blog is "Attack life, wait for nothing." Yeah, that sounds really civil to me, too.

It's pretty clear to me after reading the Reg article that Jimmy created this to bitch about Valleywag, the Reg, and this site. It amuses me that he thinks of himself as the victim here.

'Nuff Said

(Your comment is awaiting moderation.)

Jon

CiviliNation is a Virginia non-profit organization in the process of obtaining federal 501©(3) status.

Jimbo and his beau (Jimbo & Jimbeau?) don't seem to realize that simply being "civil" means very little. You can maintain a cheery, polite façade in every word you write, carefully crafting your remarks to avoid insult or vitriol, while still being diabolical and manipulative. It's the attitude behind the words that actually counts. It takes all kinds, and I'd personally prefer dealing with a blunt and honest person to a civil yet slippery one.

Just one? Don't forget about OpenServing.com and Search.Wikia.com!

The CiviliNation wiki, hosted (with advertising that I doubt goes into the pending 501-c-3) on Wikia, Inc. servers, just got a little bit more accurate.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by Angela.

* Reason given: Kohs trolling
* Start of block: 23:08, December 31, 2009
* Expiry of block: infinity
* Intended blockee: Answer Ape
* Block ID: #4800
* Current IP address: 69.xxx.yyy.zz

In October 2006, Jimmy Wales publicly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipedia Review&diff=prev&oldid=79585610 announced] that the Wikipedia Review approach to Wikipedia (an approach that Wales himself, six weeks earlier, had helped to shape) was “deeply unethical and inappropriate”, and he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Arch+Coal&year=2006&month=10&tagfilter= deleted] the Wikipedia article about Arch Coal that Wikipedia Review had authored and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Editing_with_a_conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=79593222 mentioned] online. Even though it wasn’t written for payment, and the Arch Coal company wasn’t even aware of the article, Wales mistakenly assumed it was paid content and thusly labeled it “corporate spam”. Then he indefinitely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWikipedia Review&year=2006&month=10&tagfilter= blocked] the Wikipedia Review user account on Wikipedia, so that it could not edit any more. Some hours later, Wales returned to Wikipedia to further blast the article about Arch Coal, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_5&diff=prev&oldid=79737021 calling it] a “travesty of NPOV [neutral point of view]” and “corporate fluff”.  Wales also went to the blocked Wikipedia Review User page on Wikipedia and wrote a screed against the business there: "hiring Wikipedia Review... is counterproductive and unethical".  One of his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_M_Dodge/Outreach minions] then put the polemic in white lettering on a black background, just to make it stand out more.



It took Wales over two years to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArch_Coal&diff=258731121&oldid=224255965 finally apologize] for how he acted and how poorly he handled the situation.  Now Wales is admonishing others, through CiviliNation, to be nice to others on the Internet.  Do as I say, not as I do, we suppose.

Angela, you are a worthless coward. Happy new year to you and that weasel you work with at Wikia.

The CiviliNation wiki, hosted (with advertising that I doubt goes into the pending 501-c-3) on Wikia, Inc. servers, just got a little bit more accurate.

# 14:07, January 1, 2010 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Angela loves the taste of a good dick (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
# 14:06, January 1, 2010 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! This user creation interface is crammed with squares and rectangles (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
# 14:05, January 1, 2010 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Jimmy and his gold-plated washing machine (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
# 14:03, January 1, 2010 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Angela likes big thangs in the mouth (Talk | contribs) New user account

Jimbo and his beau (Jimbo & Jimbeau?) don't seem to realize that simply being "civil" means very little. You can maintain a cheery, polite façade in every word you write, carefully crafting your remarks to avoid insult or vitriol, while still being diabolical and manipulative. It's the attitude behind the words that actually counts. It takes all kinds, and I'd personally prefer dealing with a blunt and honest person to a civil yet slippery one.

Just ignore the whole thing. I suspect that this wiki will die out from lack of interest.

Now, if only Jimbo would fall off a roof.

Jimbo and his beau (Jimbo & Jimbeau?) don't seem to realize that simply being "civil" means very little. You can maintain a cheery, polite façade in every word you write, carefully crafting your remarks to avoid insult or vitriol, while still being diabolical and manipulative. It's the attitude behind the words that actually counts. It takes all kinds, and I'd personally prefer dealing with a blunt and honest person to a civil yet slippery one.

First of all, we can easily police name-calling and profanity--we really can't police slick manipulation. Secondly, even a slick manipulator contributes to a calm and peaceful atmosphere by refraining from angry outbursts when under stress. At the end of the day, you can maintain a community even when a lot of polite manipulation occurs, but you can't maintain a community when people are screaming at each other all the time. Real life is no different.

Artificial civility rules don't do a very good job of any of those things - they represent short-term, limited thinking, the idea that if WP'ers are forced to be nice to people on the surface, they'll stick around long enough to allow themselves to be indoctrinated, and/or addicted. That isn't going to work forever, assuming it ever did. Besides, WP's focus has always been on bringing more people in, often at the expense of the other two things.

Angela, you are a worthless coward. Happy new year to you and that weasel you work with at Wikia.

The more of this shit I see, the more I think Jimbo's got some kid of evil brain power
that allows him to glamour people, and enslave them (or at least make them stalk him).

Like a vampire. ...

First, we've all seen on Wikipedia, and with other dysfunctional communities (including families), that if you impose artificial civility requirements, people will simply redefine the terms involved - so that comments which would be seen as harmless by anyone else become "personal attacks" within the dysfunctional community.

Greg, this kind of comment is uncalled for. I think you should apologize to her. She's neither worthless or a coward.

http://civilination.org/news/about-2/board-of-directors/

Share your stories of online hostility on this website, and see if Jimbo is hostile toward your story.

It’s ironic that Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, would be on the board of this group, considering Wikipedia is one of the most hostile online environments I’ve encountered.

Here’s my story.

I discovered that a former journalist was violating multiple Wikipedia policies in the course of dramatically skewing articles relating to a specific form of stock market fraud. Basically, he was trying to cover the crime up. I blogged about what I had found, and one day, discovered a Wikipedia article about me had been created. It’s sources were comprised of nothing but this former journalist and his friends. The article was grossly slanted.

Recently, I’ve come to possess a series of private email exchanges in which this article is discussed. The person who created it admits that he did it to harm me. He was proud of that fact.

Jimbo Wales was on that email list, but did nothing.

Fortunately, the article was eventually removed, no thanks to Mr. Wales.

(Your comment is awaiting moderation.)

I was called an “obsessive trolling idiot” by a powerful administrator on a popular website because I took a stand against attempts by that administrator and his friends to suppress criticism of the site.

So this is Whimbo's answer to incivility-the creation of virtual "gated communities" where a faux facade of civility is selectively enforced.
I personally would rather live in Bartertown than in his pathetic attempt to create a Galttown online.

Really Jimmy, please clean up the dump in your own yard before trying to tell others how to keep theirs!

Only two comments have actually been approved, one from somebody named Jimmy who's openly gay and has been gay-bashed (obviously not Wales, since his known sleeping-around has been purely heterosexual), and somebody named Linda praising the WSJ article.

I have just found this great forum with the subject on the organic farming.
http://www.organic-farming.org
Great ways to eat only good and healthy food. To prepere yourself for upcoming years of hunger.
http://www.organic-farming.org

There are arround 1000 members and 10000 of threads for you to read and participate in most likely one of the biggest problems on earth!
http://www.organic-farming.org

Greg, this kind of comment is uncalled for. I think you should apologize to her. She's neither worthless or a coward.

Why do you come to her defense? I am willing to discuss her removal of my freely-licensed content from the website where my contribution was expressly requested. I will discuss it on Wikia, or on Wikipedia Review. Where is she?

This site can't be taken seriously if the things people say here are wrong. Angela is no coward and she's not worthless.

This site can't be taken seriously if the things people say here are wrong. Angela is no coward and she's not worthless. You're wrong, Greg, and your comments were uncalled for. She didn't do anything to merit that type of nastiness. You should apologize to her.