Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Wikipedia disgraces itself

sammymorse has been blocked from editing WikiPedia, accused of being a "sock-puppet" on, as far as I can tell, no evidence at all, and certainly without following WikiPedia's own due procedures. My own evidence, from having known the guy for thirteen years, is that he is very far from being a figment of anyone's imagination. However, when burkesworks attempted to point this out to WikiPedia, guess what? He got blocked as well.

It's all very well having an open system for adding to the compilation of human knowledge, but this sort of harassment and bullying should not be part of WikiPedia's style and it is disgraceful that the safeguards appear to be inadequate.

I will happily risk my own editing privileges if that is necessary to get sammymorse off the hook, but I shouldn't even be in the position of having to make that calculation.



( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 24th, 2007 03:47 pm (UTC)
WTF is that homosexual agenda thing? Have you read the Making Light threads on wikipedia? It put me off ever attempting to do any content provision at all. It appears the system is being gamed by power hungry agressive trolls, sadly.
Jul. 24th, 2007 06:12 pm (UTC)
I have no doubt that there are people on WikiPedia who try and game the system in order to promote gay rights; I have no doubt that there are people (probably more people) who try the opposite. I think it would be very difficult to demonstrate that sammymorse is part of a grand conspiracy, as the WikiPedia user in question asserts; although it's fairly clear where his opinions lie, his Wiki edits have been pretty moderate.
Jul. 24th, 2007 06:45 pm (UTC)
The guy all het up (to coin a phrase) about "the homosexual agenda" is himself a kook, as a look at his user page history shows.
Jul. 24th, 2007 06:57 pm (UTC)
I pointed him in the direction of Conservapedia.
Jul. 24th, 2007 04:05 pm (UTC)
Wikipedia administrators aren't flawless. They are, after all, volunteers like anyone else who edits Wikipedia.
Jul. 24th, 2007 04:08 pm (UTC)
Sure, but the system ought not to penalise people who appeal unjust decisions!
Jul. 24th, 2007 05:24 pm (UTC)
The likely case seems to be that an admin banned him by accident, hasn't been around in a while to read his messages, and another admin kept banning any IP he posted from to complain, since technically that's ban evasion.
Jul. 24th, 2007 06:04 pm (UTC)
Do you think it is a good thing that the system penalises people who appeal unjust decisions, in the way you have just described?
Jul. 24th, 2007 06:49 pm (UTC)
It seems to be the case that the second fellow was only caught in an IP ban laid for the first one. I could be wrong.
Jul. 24th, 2007 06:54 pm (UTC)
I appreciate (and I'm sure sammymorse does as well) the fact that you have now risked your own editing privileges by weighing in on the discussion boards yourself; but the fact remains that the system penalises people who appeal unjust decisions!
Jul. 24th, 2007 08:02 pm (UTC)
> the system penalises people who appeal unjust decisions

move along, nothing to see here.
Jul. 25th, 2007 09:07 am (UTC)
technically that's ban evasion

Technically, yes, but to have nowhere to go to to appeal a ban, no coherent system for dealing with it? That makes the LJ Abuse team look open and professional in comparison.

If a site that you invest effort in bans you for an unfounded accusation, then if that site is to have the respect of the community it supposedly builds,t here needs to be a clear appeals/investigation process, and the person banned needs to be able to state their side. Anything else is damaging the very purpose of the project—it's this sort of thing that puts me off getting an account.
(Deleted comment)
Jul. 25th, 2007 02:45 pm (UTC)
It wasn't a 1-1 thing. It was a wikipedia admin with a dozen admitted sockpuppet accounts, and who apparently edited from his work connection sometimes.

Which is the same work connection that sammymorse uses, implying that they're the same person.

And the admin who blocked him checked that, nothing else, and didn't document any of it.
( 13 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel