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

[Rebecca Ryan]

I could care less why Chuck was banned from Wikipedia. 

Why is all this banning going on to begin with? If a discussion becomes
inappropriate because emotions run high, temporary suspension seems an
obvious reasonable solution. Chuck is banned for life for using the "f"
word? If someone had said "I know where you live..." - that is worthy of a
ban. 

We obviously have different points of view on many aspects of this. I'm not
the owner of the list and I don't tirelessly and thanklessly keep it going
so well (and I do not wish to start my own, or join another list); however,
questioning a management decision should very well be acceptable in this
forum. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Truitt [mailto:mtruitt at uh.edu] 
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 3:22 PM
To: Joshua Ferraro
Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Subscriber Removal Clarification -- slightly long...

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/
> 
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/