[Web4lib] Subscriber Removal Clarification -- slightly long...

[Marc Truitt]

Joshua Ferraro wrote [in part] :
 >
 > So in effect, we should single out Chuck, and ignore the contextual
 > aspects of his actions. Well I for one disagree. [remainder deleted]

[sigh.]

I have hesitated to enter into what obviously is a debate that seems 
ruled more by passion than any real objectivity, but I am troubled by 
Mr. Ferraro 's accusation that those who happen to agree with the 
listowner's action are 'ignor[ing] the contextual aspects' of the case. 
  I think it might indeed help for us to refresh our collective memory 
about the 'contextual aspects' in question, for they seem to me to call 
into question whether Chuck0 was in fact provoked, as some posters have 
suggested.  Following is my reconstruction of the critical portion of 
the chronology (times given are CST, as received here)...

1)  Chuck0, 2005-12-15, 02.30pm, replying to James Jacobs:

"If people enjoyed my opinions on fair use and copyright, perhaps I 
should share my Wikipedia [expletive deleted] detector with the list. 
I'm currently banned from posting to Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia 
has banned a librarian at least twice for trying to correct factual 
misinformation on articles ought to bother a few of you."

2)  Bill Drew, 2005-12-15, 02.36pm:

"Under what conditions were you banned? "

3)  Chuck0, 2005-12-15, 02.42pm:

"I do not like being put on the spot with a question like that.

"I made yet another attempt to correct false information that is being 
added to an entry by a handful of Wiki-zealots. [...]"

4)  [several back and forth postings between Chuck0 and various others 
followed]

5)  John Creech, 2005-12-15, 03.04pm, replying in part to Drew's question:

"[URL to Wikipedia incident archive describing one of the incidents to 
which Chuck0 was presumably referring in his posting 1), above]"

6)  Chuck0, 2005-12-15, 03.15pm, replying to Creech's post:

"[expletive deleted]"


It should be apparent from the above that the "Chuck0 was provoked" 
argument must rely either on

- the premise that he made Creech stand as a surrogate for his 
"provocation" by others, or

- Creech's posting of the Wikipedia URL against his (Chuck0's) wishes so 
inflamed him that he responded in the manner he did in 6).

Neither of these explanations is in retrospect excusable.  The first 
one, that Chuck0 made Creech's posting an excuse for venting his 
frustration with others, is simply unjustifiable.  If person A responds 
to something said by person B by in turn attacking person C, does this 
make sense?  Is it excusable?

The more interesting argument, though, is the implication that somehow 
Creech wronged Chuck0 by posting information he (Chuck0) had expressly 
indicated he did not wish to appear on web4lib.  Lost in this viewpoint 
is the clear fact that Chuck0 *brought this on himself*.  It was *he* 
who originally posted to the list the statement that he had been 
"banned... at least twice" from posting to Wikipedia.  Indeed, he even 
said "perhaps I should share my Wikipedia [expletive deleted] detector 
with the list," which in retrospect seems a clear invitation for any 
reasonable person to ask, as did Drew, for details.

C'mon now, folks.  This is a list read by lots of very intelligent 
people.  Who among us would not want the details, after Chuck0 teased us 
all with the fact that he'd been "banned"?  I think that virtually all 
of us (those who are intellectually honest about it, at any rate) would 
have to answer that we found the statement intriguing and an invitation 
to do some digging (Umm... isn't that what we *do* for a living?).  And 
Creech, by his own later account, didn't exactly have to engage in 
rocket science to discover what he did.  Given this, it's absurd to 
think that Creech in any way provoked Chuck0.  Creech did what any of us 
would likely have done.  He located and checked the source, and then 
shared the results with the rest of us.

And with that, I'm going to slip back into lurker mode and hope that 
this whole kerfuffle dies a quick and well-deserved death.

- mt

-- 
*************************************************************************
Marc Truitt
Assistant Dean for Systems                      Voice  : 713-743-8979
University of Houston Libraries                 e-mail : mtruitt at uh.edu
114 University Libraries                        fax    : 713-743-9811
Houston, TX 77204-2000                          cell   : 713-201-0351 


Once upon a time, there was a tavern
Where we used to raise a glass or two.
Remember how we laughed away the hours,
Think of all the great things we would do?
                                     -- Gene Raskin/Mary Hopkin
*************************************************************************


Joshua Ferraro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 04:21:00PM -0500, JB Bryant wrote:
> 
>>My response to that (I don't plan on continuing this much longer
>>myself) is that the action under scrutiny right now is removing Chuck.
>>I think we need to discuss that on its own. If others should have been
>>removed as well, that needs to be treated as a separate discussion.
> 
> So in effect, we should single out Chuck, and ignore the contextual
> aspects of his actions. Well I for one disagree. I think enforcing
> policies (list or otherwise) should be non-discriminatory. If 
> several people are 'guilty' of the same offense, either they should
> all recieve the same sanction, or the policy should be changed.
> 
> Joshua
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>