Anyone wrote:Wow. Just wow! Will Mr Lomax fight back or will he flee into the shadows with his tail between his legs. Only a brave man would take on TDA, but is Mr Lomax the man for the job?
TDA's declaration of war has the potential to become bigger news than FramGate. The world is watching!
Should it Any? Bigger than Framgate?
Is that possible, Any?
I don't think so.
Well, let me tell you one thing. If Guido is right and I think he is right the fight over who has the highest tree house on Discord will be nothing and soon forgotten. Really nothing.
And yes, Crow is disapointed. But that is in no way necessary because Crow has done really a great job.
He gave us a really unique inside view in the deep sewers under Wikipedia and I want to thank him for that.
Because he didn't only gave me/us a deeper insight what is the true behind the wiki community's, no, he gave also all the free loaders who are now complete locked up in Wiki Hotel in California a great hotel tour. They all know now where they are locked up in.
Count your blessings if you have never have accepted one of there nice paddo-stroopwafel what Romaine was offering on ever international wiki meeting. Count your blessings, count your belssings every day. At least, that is what I do every day. Thank the lord on your bare knees if you are now standing outside that
kut hotel and are only watching till the flames come out of the roof. .
And I tell you why. (Thanks for
this link, Vig)
Has there ever been a consultation at what an appropriate level of fairness is? Not to my knowledge, and I would argue that the community at large is neither qualified to, nor the appropriate body to, determine how the platform provider - the WMF - conducts investigations into how its platform is used. Just off the top of my head, our T&S processes are heavily informed by our legal obligations to involved parties - what happens when the community !votes that we must, say, publicly explain all bans, which we can't do due to those legal obligations? It's certainly understandable that community members would want those ban explanations, but it's just not gonna be able to happen. That's one example, but it's not the only element of our process that is informed or determined by things that are outside of the community's..."control" isn't quite the right word, maybe "authority"? And I don't mean that in a snooty, "You can't tell us what to do, how dare you!" sense, but rather in the sense of "we have obligations in these cases beyond 'do what the community !votes', and those obligations will exist no matter what the community !votes." I'm not saying that our investigation decisions can never possibly be reviewed by anyone, ever - I've seen some people arguing for some sort of appeal body, and that's a totally valid suggestion - but having the community try to set what does and doesn't count as due investigative process for us isn't going to work, imo, because we have obligations to parties other than the community. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Because what is Karen Brown saying.
*
"Has there ever been a consultation at what an appropriate level of fairness is? Not to my knowledge, and I would argue that the community at large is neither qualified to, nor the appropriate body to, determine how the platform provider - the WMF - conducts investigations into how its platform is used.">She is saying in a lady like very polite way just fuck off, wiki community. Our platform.
*
It's certainly understandable that community members would want those ban explanations, but it's just not gonna be able to happen.
>Of course not. Why? Because a SanFanBan is a matter between WMF and the person who is banned, the communety is no party to this.
*
..........because we have obligations to parties other than the community.>Exacte. They have nothing to do with the wiki community's. Realy nothing, whatever Timmy and his friends are saying.
But she is saying even more:
On the topic of "due process", I want to stress that that's a jurisprudential term not equivalent to "fairness". It has a definition in courts of law, because the courts recognize that if society is going to do state-sponsored violence to someone, there are certain standards the state needs to meet before it can legally do that. This is not that. There's lots of legal precedent showing that when the outcomes are less extreme, the requirements for due process are correspondingly not as high, and that exactly what due process requires is something to figure out for each unique fact pattern. We definitely believe that the way we handle complaints should be fair, which is the ultimate goal of due process as a concept...but we're a privately-owned website and we're not inflicting violence on anyone. The most severe measure under this policy is the Foundation as owner banning someone from using our privately-owned website. On top of that, Wikipedia itself has a uniquely good, complementary system for reviewing complaints because everything someone has posted on-wiki is saved in archives and everyone can easily see a person’s history and postings exactly as they looked at the time they posted. That all means that legalistic "due process" is not always going to be the right standard for us to use before we, you know, ban someone from editing an encyclopedia or dictionary or whatever. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
*
"On top of that, Wikipedia itself has a uniquely good, complementary system for reviewing complaints because everything someone has posted on-wiki is saved in archives and everyone can easily see a person’s history and postings exactly as they looked at the time they posted. That all means that legalistic "due process" is not always going to be the right standard for us to use before we, you know, ban someone from editing an encyclopedia or dictionary or whatever". >Ahhhhh, here we are. Everything is stored my friends, don't tell us bullshit. In the wiki history, the wiki history what is now dammed by every guest in Wiki hotel California!
Because that is what will bite them in the future!
