This is in reference to:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-May/051889.html
I would like to thank Michael Bimmler for
steering me through this mailing list. Michael
always addressed me in a polite, professional,
and non-judgmental manner. It was a pleasure to
correspond with him. We had the kind and level of
interaction I was expecting to find at the
pt:wiki. Thanks also for the sensible comment
made by Phil Nash. Although we might not be in
complete agreement, some good points were raised
and the benefit of experience is of great value.
Twice I asked for Cary Bass' advice about posting
this message, but I'm sorry to say that I never
got an answer. According to Michael, Cary is
Volunteer Coordinator at the Wikimedia
Foundation. I'm sure he had more pressing matters to attend to.
Let me try to organize the discussion by
separating a) a very real general question from
b) my hypothetical example. I believe that the
discussion of real examples will be beneficial to both.
a) A very real and clear statement was made by an
administrator bureaucrat, also a member of the
arbitration committee, which can be found here
(the quotations are in English):
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Arquivo/2009/05#NH
He quoted the Wikimedia:Non discrimination
policy, explaining that that policy did NOT allow
them to treat editors differently, based on their
[...] medical condition. Wikimedia:Code of Conduct Policy was also quoted.
I believe that "medical condition" includes the
whole spectrum of physical and mental illnesses,
but please let me know if my interpretation is not correct.
Phil Nash states that in case a registered user
is not able to communicate effectively, as it has
already happened on en:wiki, they have been
persuaded to be adopted by willing mentors.
I consider that a good example of treating
editors differently based on their medical
condition. This is also similar to the special
treatment given inexperienced users, namely
through the Adopt-a-User program
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User)
that has a parallel in the Portuguese Wikipedia
(please see interlanguage link.)
That procedure also conforms to current non
discriminatory legislation in many countries that
makes it compulsory to provide ramps for
wheelchairs, Braille markings and sound warnings,
and special education for those with all sorts of
illnesses, both physical and mental. That is, a
non discriminatory policy means that you treat
people differently based on their medical
condition. NOT treating editors differently,
based on their medical condition, is considered DISCRIMINATION.
In the Portuguese Wikipedia, as exemplified by
the statement of that administrator bureaucrat,
and member of the arbitration committee, there is
the exact opposite understanding and
interpretation, contrary to what non
discrimination is. So far, nobody else has
contradicted that position which was only
disclosed in response to my questioning.
My point is that this state of affairs in the
Portuguese Wikipedia cannot be tolerated,
condoned and supported by the resources of the
Wikimedia Foundation, generously provided by
volunteers and donors keen on improving the
general knowledge and welfare of humankind and
not the misguidance of a group that actively or
with their silence have taken over the Portuguese
Wikipedia. Swift and drastic measures need to be taken to stop this.
b) My strictly hypothetical case assumed that a
tetraplegic girl had learned how to use a
computer and found out about Wikipedia. After
registering as a user she did all sort of
trampling. To my question if there would be any
administrator willing to block her from editing
Wikipedia, three administrators, one of them a
bureaucrat and member of the arbitration committee answered YES:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Arquivo/2009/05#NH
No dissenting opinion has been published, to this
date, anywhere on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I
have refused to do so for the reasons stated at
the conclusions of both part a) and b).
This is in stark contrast with the assumptions
and procedures advocated by Phil Nash. First he
narrows the case to one in which her physical
disability does not impair her mental faculties,
that she is aware of what she is doing, and
certainly should be after a number of warnings.
There's no problem with this scenario since it is added:
"If it's just a case of being unable to
communicate effectively, we do have users on
en:wiki with similar issues, and have persuaded
them to be adopted by willing mentors". Thus a
procedure is suggested to prevent errors at the
source or have someone at the ready to revert
them, without requesting for the user blocking.
Admittedly, the corrective actions of such mentor
would also avoid the need for those requests to
be made and to act on them. I find this a viable and correct approach.
I beg to differ with Phil Nash when he states
that "However, the bottom line to me is whether
the harm to the encyclopedia (willed or not)
outweighs the benefit of having that person
editing". It is not difficult to conclude, even
without any figures, that this kind of
benefits-cost analysis would make any action in
favor of the disabled unfeasible, and disability
rights laws unactable. The very nature of
Wikipedia makes it impossible to produce any harm
comparable to the benefit of making its edition
available to anyone whose capable of doing it, no
matter at what cost in reverts. There's already
enough vandalism being done by people supposedly
sound of mind and body. It's hard to imagine that
the marginal costs of handling the errors of the
disabled would put the project in jeopardy. There
might even be a way to tap additional resources to cope with such costs.
Such is the current situation of the Portuguese
Wikipedia. I believe that as a consequence of the
self management of the project, it is now being
operated and run on a daily basis by a group of
people with severe mental, emotional, and
behavioral problems, completely out of control
and without any kind of supervision and/or
regulation. This has been corroborated by several
pt-wikipedians. In an attempt to gather a sample
of their statements, a non-exhaustive collection
was made
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Vapmachado/Adeus_Wikip%C3%A9dia).
It was voted for deletion
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Usu%C3%A1rio:Vapmachado/Adeus_Wikip%C3%A9dia)
with arguments from both sides that are outright
embarrassing. Maintaining the page won by four votes.
This voting is just one of many examples of
rampant disrespect for the five pillars,
occuring, unchalanged, on a regular basis on the
Portuguese Wikipedia. Mobbing is practiced matter
of factly, and promoted openly on discussion
pages. Just for your information, please be aware
that I was already harassed on the Portuguese
Wikipedia
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esplanada/Arquivo/2009/Maio#Vapmachado_resmungando_na_lista_de_discuss.C3.A3o_da_Wikimedia_Foundation)
for bringing up this subject on "foundation-l." I
was under the threat of banishment
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Vapmachado#Aviso_2)
from the pages where this harassment takes place,
by the same administrator bureaucrat and member
of the of arbitration committee mentioned in both
parts a) and b). When I questioned the voting for
violating that Wikipedia is free content, I ended
up blocked for six days
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Vapmachado#Bloqueio_2).
I don't think that analysis of much of the goings
on in the pt:wiki by competent professionals
would give it a clean bill of mental health. It's
a crazy world, I know, but the project is of an
encyclopedia, not a crazypedia (forgive my
hyperbole.) "Pero si muove." Certainly, it does,
but at what cost, it is my turn to ask. Is it
really as impossible to bring a project like this
under control, once it gets spinning on its own
axis, as it is to stop the Earth from moving? Or
are there enough resources to correct the course?
Sincerely,
Virgílio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado vam@fct.unl.pt
Engenharia
Industrial
http://web.archive.org/web/20070824105539/www.ipei.pt/GDEI/
DEMI/FCT/UNL Fax: 351-21-294-8546 or 21-294-8531
Universidade de Portugal or 351-21-295-4461
2829-516 Caparica Tel.: 351-21-294-8542 or 21-294-8567
PORTUGAL or 351-21-294-8300 or 21 294-8500
Ext.112-32
96-888-6852
Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia/UNL (FCT/UNL)
(Dr. Machado is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the
School of Sciences and Engineering/UNL of the University of Portugal)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-May/051889.html
I would like to thank Michael Bimmler for
steering me through this mailing list. Michael
always addressed me in a polite, professional,
and non-judgmental manner. It was a pleasure to
correspond with him. We had the kind and level of
interaction I was expecting to find at the
pt:wiki. Thanks also for the sensible comment
made by Phil Nash. Although we might not be in
complete agreement, some good points were raised
and the benefit of experience is of great value.
Twice I asked for Cary Bass' advice about posting
this message, but I'm sorry to say that I never
got an answer. According to Michael, Cary is
Volunteer Coordinator at the Wikimedia
Foundation. I'm sure he had more pressing matters to attend to.
Let me try to organize the discussion by
separating a) a very real general question from
b) my hypothetical example. I believe that the
discussion of real examples will be beneficial to both.
a) A very real and clear statement was made by an
administrator bureaucrat, also a member of the
arbitration committee, which can be found here
(the quotations are in English):
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Arquivo/2009/05#NH
He quoted the Wikimedia:Non discrimination
policy, explaining that that policy did NOT allow
them to treat editors differently, based on their
[...] medical condition. Wikimedia:Code of Conduct Policy was also quoted.
I believe that "medical condition" includes the
whole spectrum of physical and mental illnesses,
but please let me know if my interpretation is not correct.
Phil Nash states that in case a registered user
is not able to communicate effectively, as it has
already happened on en:wiki, they have been
persuaded to be adopted by willing mentors.
I consider that a good example of treating
editors differently based on their medical
condition. This is also similar to the special
treatment given inexperienced users, namely
through the Adopt-a-User program
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User)
that has a parallel in the Portuguese Wikipedia
(please see interlanguage link.)
That procedure also conforms to current non
discriminatory legislation in many countries that
makes it compulsory to provide ramps for
wheelchairs, Braille markings and sound warnings,
and special education for those with all sorts of
illnesses, both physical and mental. That is, a
non discriminatory policy means that you treat
people differently based on their medical
condition. NOT treating editors differently,
based on their medical condition, is considered DISCRIMINATION.
In the Portuguese Wikipedia, as exemplified by
the statement of that administrator bureaucrat,
and member of the arbitration committee, there is
the exact opposite understanding and
interpretation, contrary to what non
discrimination is. So far, nobody else has
contradicted that position which was only
disclosed in response to my questioning.
My point is that this state of affairs in the
Portuguese Wikipedia cannot be tolerated,
condoned and supported by the resources of the
Wikimedia Foundation, generously provided by
volunteers and donors keen on improving the
general knowledge and welfare of humankind and
not the misguidance of a group that actively or
with their silence have taken over the Portuguese
Wikipedia. Swift and drastic measures need to be taken to stop this.
b) My strictly hypothetical case assumed that a
tetraplegic girl had learned how to use a
computer and found out about Wikipedia. After
registering as a user she did all sort of
trampling. To my question if there would be any
administrator willing to block her from editing
Wikipedia, three administrators, one of them a
bureaucrat and member of the arbitration committee answered YES:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Arquivo/2009/05#NH
No dissenting opinion has been published, to this
date, anywhere on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I
have refused to do so for the reasons stated at
the conclusions of both part a) and b).
This is in stark contrast with the assumptions
and procedures advocated by Phil Nash. First he
narrows the case to one in which her physical
disability does not impair her mental faculties,
that she is aware of what she is doing, and
certainly should be after a number of warnings.
There's no problem with this scenario since it is added:
"If it's just a case of being unable to
communicate effectively, we do have users on
en:wiki with similar issues, and have persuaded
them to be adopted by willing mentors". Thus a
procedure is suggested to prevent errors at the
source or have someone at the ready to revert
them, without requesting for the user blocking.
Admittedly, the corrective actions of such mentor
would also avoid the need for those requests to
be made and to act on them. I find this a viable and correct approach.
I beg to differ with Phil Nash when he states
that "However, the bottom line to me is whether
the harm to the encyclopedia (willed or not)
outweighs the benefit of having that person
editing". It is not difficult to conclude, even
without any figures, that this kind of
benefits-cost analysis would make any action in
favor of the disabled unfeasible, and disability
rights laws unactable. The very nature of
Wikipedia makes it impossible to produce any harm
comparable to the benefit of making its edition
available to anyone whose capable of doing it, no
matter at what cost in reverts. There's already
enough vandalism being done by people supposedly
sound of mind and body. It's hard to imagine that
the marginal costs of handling the errors of the
disabled would put the project in jeopardy. There
might even be a way to tap additional resources to cope with such costs.
Such is the current situation of the Portuguese
Wikipedia. I believe that as a consequence of the
self management of the project, it is now being
operated and run on a daily basis by a group of
people with severe mental, emotional, and
behavioral problems, completely out of control
and without any kind of supervision and/or
regulation. This has been corroborated by several
pt-wikipedians. In an attempt to gather a sample
of their statements, a non-exhaustive collection
was made
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Vapmachado/Adeus_Wikip%C3%A9dia).
It was voted for deletion
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Usu%C3%A1rio:Vapmachado/Adeus_Wikip%C3%A9dia)
with arguments from both sides that are outright
embarrassing. Maintaining the page won by four votes.
This voting is just one of many examples of
rampant disrespect for the five pillars,
occuring, unchalanged, on a regular basis on the
Portuguese Wikipedia. Mobbing is practiced matter
of factly, and promoted openly on discussion
pages. Just for your information, please be aware
that I was already harassed on the Portuguese
Wikipedia
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esplanada/Arquivo/2009/Maio#Vapmachado_resmungando_na_lista_de_discuss.C3.A3o_da_Wikimedia_Foundation)
for bringing up this subject on "foundation-l." I
was under the threat of banishment
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Vapmachado#Aviso_2)
from the pages where this harassment takes place,
by the same administrator bureaucrat and member
of the of arbitration committee mentioned in both
parts a) and b). When I questioned the voting for
violating that Wikipedia is free content, I ended
up blocked for six days
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Vapmachado#Bloqueio_2).
I don't think that analysis of much of the goings
on in the pt:wiki by competent professionals
would give it a clean bill of mental health. It's
a crazy world, I know, but the project is of an
encyclopedia, not a crazypedia (forgive my
hyperbole.) "Pero si muove." Certainly, it does,
but at what cost, it is my turn to ask. Is it
really as impossible to bring a project like this
under control, once it gets spinning on its own
axis, as it is to stop the Earth from moving? Or
are there enough resources to correct the course?
Sincerely,
Virgílio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado vam@fct.unl.pt
Engenharia
Industrial
http://web.archive.org/web/20070824105539/www.ipei.pt/GDEI/
DEMI/FCT/UNL Fax: 351-21-294-8546 or 21-294-8531
Universidade de Portugal or 351-21-295-4461
2829-516 Caparica Tel.: 351-21-294-8542 or 21-294-8567
PORTUGAL or 351-21-294-8300 or 21 294-8500
Ext.112-32
96-888-6852
Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia/UNL (FCT/UNL)
(Dr. Machado is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the
School of Sciences and Engineering/UNL of the University of Portugal)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l