Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-08/In the media
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Nyttend in topic Discuss this story
Discuss this story
- The COI editor should be unblocked. This seems like a unilateral action by a single admin, and blocking someone purely because they're making edits that are POV without discussing how to make the edits better shouldn't be allowed. We need to educate on how to cover every side of the dispute. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 02:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've unintentionally hit upon the primary problem. The notion of "every side" needing to be represented so as to create a false balance is the problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that we are now banning editors for potential to make bad edits, rather than banning them based on the content of edits. This fundamentally opposes our "Anyone can edit" ideology.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's why I made a point of including the content of the edits, which wasn't discussed in too much depth in BuzzFeed. A case could be made that the content is problematic, not just the orientation of editor making them. Another different case could be made that the content of the individual edits isn't particularly problematic, but when you have an editor dedicated to negative content towards one particular group, overall that is problematic. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's good the you included the content of their edits, but no mention of the content of his edits was made when he was blocked. We don't want to institutionalize preemptive bans.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's why I made a point of including the content of the edits, which wasn't discussed in too much depth in BuzzFeed. A case could be made that the content is problematic, not just the orientation of editor making them. Another different case could be made that the content of the individual edits isn't particularly problematic, but when you have an editor dedicated to negative content towards one particular group, overall that is problematic. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that we are now banning editors for potential to make bad edits, rather than banning them based on the content of edits. This fundamentally opposes our "Anyone can edit" ideology.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've unintentionally hit upon the primary problem. The notion of "every side" needing to be represented so as to create a false balance is the problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia, the statue that anyone can edit? Altamel (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but even with Wikipedia, some things are set in stone (especially in this case)! Peaceray (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually not. I suspect a number of "editors" act during "silly season" and the one which got blocked was the only one which tried to be responsible. Look at the edits of PatToomey for example and tell us whether those edits are as factual as the ones for which these blocks were made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but even with Wikipedia, some things are set in stone (especially in this case)! Peaceray (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)