tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post7088764557038242390..comments2024-03-29T03:37:19.590-04:00Comments on SafeLibraries®: ALA Pushes Net Neutrality on Wikipedia; Political and Pecuniary Interests Promoted Anonymously by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom May Violate Ethical and Tax CodesSafeLibraries®http://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-9895285133501561862015-06-30T15:26:17.483-04:002015-06-30T15:26:17.483-04:00Dear LAEC of deep information...Have you found out...Dear LAEC of deep information...Have you found out exacatically who the persons are who blocked you from wikipedia? Have you contacted the original founder? Can you do FOIA requests to find out? from @ voneaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-7725225368840105192011-01-01T22:23:05.491-05:002011-01-01T22:23:05.491-05:00Local_MLIS_Student, thanks again for writing. Tha...Local_MLIS_Student, thanks again for writing. That information, if any, may be revealed in the proper forum. The comments to this blog post is not such a forum.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-37598865602522548602011-01-01T11:44:54.738-05:002011-01-01T11:44:54.738-05:00What "criminal activity" among the Wikip...What "criminal activity" among the Wikipedia edits are you referring to, exactly?Localhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798329694350161856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-23626054804024994722010-12-31T11:05:23.039-05:002010-12-31T11:05:23.039-05:00Okay. Thanks for writing here.Okay. Thanks for writing here.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-9902579348205346812010-12-31T10:59:54.076-05:002010-12-31T10:59:54.076-05:00And you keep missing the point. Nuff said.And you keep missing the point. Nuff said.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-83369870336368900832010-12-31T09:57:20.983-05:002010-12-31T09:57:20.983-05:00Actually, it does. I am under an ethical obligati...Actually, it does. I am under an ethical obligation to report criminal activity. Besides, it's common sense. <br /><br />Since you banned me from Wikipedia then helped the person in question to remove some of the evidence or just removed it on your own, you are not in a good position to continue to cast blame on me, now here on my own blog as well as on Wikipedia where you blocked me from defending myself. Besides, there remains other evidence you have not yet removed likely because you are not yet aware of it.<br /><br />I also find this post of yours interesting: "<a href="http://heathenscientist.blogspot.com/2010/09/pedophilia-whitewash-at-wikipedia.html" rel="nofollow">Pedophilia Whitewash at Wikipedia</a>." It seems you have trouble on Wikipedia with possible self-promoters as well and also write about it on your blog. Except the guy does not act anonymously or make potentially illegal edits.<br /><br />And I love this: "Disclaimer: I tried to change some things for the better, but one editor specific, and several more in general pretty much block any improvement of the article that is not in line with the medical operationalization of the term."<br /><br />Exactly.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-75670781596608852512010-12-31T09:12:36.444-05:002010-12-31T09:12:36.444-05:00Well, see you at ArbCom then. BTW, you keep confus...Well, see you at ArbCom then. BTW, you keep confusing your activity with those of others. The activities of others do not justify yours.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-91630403857611402462010-12-31T00:29:33.976-05:002010-12-31T00:29:33.976-05:00I think the Wikipedia rules are fine and I have be...I think the Wikipedia rules are fine and I have been in compliance, especially as of late, as some of my defenders have repeated. I think how the Wikipedia rules have been applied by the very limited subset of volunteer Wikipedia editors who participated in my being blocked is the problem.<br /><br />It's like CIPA, the Children's Internet Protection Act. The US Supreme Court found it constitutional despite the American Library Association/ACLU effort to kill it. However, the manner in which it is applied may not be constitutional and may result in an "as applied" challenge. None has happened since the 2003 decision, but that's besides the point.<br /><br />If I am not unblocked voluntarily, I will bring an "as applied" challenge to the Wikipedia rule in question to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArbCom" rel="nofollow">ArbCom</a>. I have good reason to believe that I have a legitimate and even compelling argument. <br /><br />In addition, there may be even more egregious activity in the logs of those IP addresses that I have not yet revealed. Certainly no Wikipedia rule requires people not to report criminal activity or to be blocked if they do.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-46113242485198896052010-12-30T23:55:14.124-05:002010-12-30T23:55:14.124-05:00Ha, in that way. Well, that could be true, I have ...Ha, in that way. Well, that could be true, I have no way of knowing. Wikipedia is its own community, and the rules that have been established is to keep the community functioning. To extrapolate internet wide initiatives to individual websites misses the point of the net neutrality discussion as far as I can tell. Net neutrality if not about how individual websites govern themselves, but how the internet as a whole cannot be controlled by companies or governments. In that way, this post is missing the point all together. Wikipedia is not the internet.<br /><br />The Internet is a collective of all people. Rules for how to act on that scale have to be established at that level. Wikipedia is a collective of editors, and they as a group have to establishes their rules. Those website level rules in no way have to reflect the rules of the internet at large. And under those rules, blog posts like this result in blocking of editors. It is up to the individual editors to determine whether they do or do not want to play by those rules. You obviously have chosen not to play by those rules. That is your right but I think it is also unfortunate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-9428831872354325562010-12-30T23:05:12.812-05:002010-12-30T23:05:12.812-05:00Oh! No, you are in no way connected to the ALA of...Oh! No, you are in no way connected to the ALA of which I'm aware. <br /><br />When I said, "apparent ALA supporters, if not ALA members or the OIF itself, have initiated action at Wikipedia that resulting in efforts to stop my editing there or to have me remove this blog post," that only says those people "initiated" action that snowballed into what happened to me. That said, making such complaints is intended to cause some kind of restriction of speech.<br /><br />The total newbies who initiated the complaint about the alleged outing of Dcs47 could not possibly have the power you have to block my access to Wikipedia. <br /><br />And for people reading this, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KimvdLinde" rel="nofollow">KimvdLinde</a> is the Wikipedian who actually severed my ability to write on Wikipedia. She's quite an interesting person whom I respect--go read about her at the link I provided. She's an example of why Wikipedia has some excellent content.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-25720487898491547762010-12-30T22:28:45.273-05:002010-12-30T22:28:45.273-05:00KimvdLindeKimvdLindeAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-89391641570352009852010-12-30T21:31:16.937-05:002010-12-30T21:31:16.937-05:00Siglind, thanks for writing. I don't recogniz...Siglind, thanks for writing. I don't recognize your name from Wikipedia. Are you one of the editors involved in any way? If so, who? Thanks.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-5830932072258176162010-12-30T18:59:17.205-05:002010-12-30T18:59:17.205-05:00Well, do you suggest that I am doing things for th...Well, do you suggest that I am doing things for the ALA at wikipedia?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-1212509181226704112010-12-30T12:13:45.912-05:002010-12-30T12:13:45.912-05:00I accidentally deleted someone's comment (Loca...I accidentally deleted someone's comment (Local_MLIS_Student) because he has been a serial harrasser in the past and it initially appeared his harassment was continuing. It's not friendly, but it's not harassment. Typically, though, it completely avoids the substantive issues raised. So I'll repost it now.<br /><br />And no, there is nothing wrong with advertising with Google on multiple web sites, including mine. And I realize along with everyone else the ad was placed randomly on my site by Google. But calling it "Net Neutrality 101" is at least slightly misleading under the circumstances as described, for example, in John Fund's Wall Street Journal piece I linked above.<br /><br />Here is the comment by Local_MLIS_Student:<br /><br />HI. I've been following this, and while I think much of what you say is just paranoia and unfounded speculation, your recent note that FreePress is "now directly advertising on this very blog post!" is completely and utterly wrong, and as such, quite misleading.<br /><br />You, sir, use AdSense on your blog -- thus you have those random "Ads by Google" links. Those get placed automatically by Google's algorithms, based on keywords present on your blog site. Companies bid to have their ads placed by Google based on those keywords. Thus, some word on your blog post (probably "net neutrality") triggered the placement of the Free Press ad.<br /><br />Sir, this is not some direct and specific placement by Free Press on this specific blog posting. Please calm down and learn your facts.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.com