Comments on: The Saga of Wikimedia UK and its Chair http://larrysanger.org/2012/07/the-saga-of-wikimedia-uk-and-its-chair/ Mon, 20 May 2013 11:03:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Larry Sanger Blog » On the moral bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s anonymous administration http://larrysanger.org/2012/07/the-saga-of-wikimedia-uk-and-its-chair/#comment-55309 Larry Sanger Blog » On the moral bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s anonymous administration Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:13:04 +0000 http://larrysanger.org/?p=1248#comment-55309 [...] administration has been nothing but one long string of scandal and mismanagement. The saga of Wikimedia UK and its chair is only the latest. Did you know that the deposed chair, Ashley van Haeften, continues to sit on [...] [...] administration has been nothing but one long string of scandal and mismanagement. The saga of Wikimedia UK and its chair is only the latest. Did you know that the deposed chair, Ashley van Haeften, continues to sit on [...]

]]> By: Larry Sanger http://larrysanger.org/2012/07/the-saga-of-wikimedia-uk-and-its-chair/#comment-54520 Larry Sanger Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:20:50 +0000 http://larrysanger.org/?p=1248#comment-54520 I won't comment further on what I think about Ashley Van Haeften. My point is certainly not that he is "immoral." We are all immoral, to some degree. I don't know Van Haeften or even know much about him, beyond what I've put in this blog. Indeed, my criticism is not really of him. It is of Wikimedia UK. He was banned from Wikipedia, and it is a seriously dysfunctional organization that cannot bring itself to remove someone who has been banned from the website--for violating its own policies--from all positions of authority. I won’t comment further on what I think about Ashley Van Haeften. My point is certainly not that he is “immoral.” We are all immoral, to some degree. I don’t know Van Haeften or even know much about him, beyond what I’ve put in this blog. Indeed, my criticism is not really of him. It is of Wikimedia UK. He was banned from Wikipedia, and it is a seriously dysfunctional organization that cannot bring itself to remove someone who has been banned from the website–for violating its own policies–from all positions of authority.

]]> By: Adwait Thakur http://larrysanger.org/2012/07/the-saga-of-wikimedia-uk-and-its-chair/#comment-54518 Adwait Thakur Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:30:24 +0000 http://larrysanger.org/?p=1248#comment-54518 Totally support you for this Larry Sanger. People like us like to learn from the leaders of yesterday but Ashley was into something that didn't suit him or will ever suit somebody such senior as him. I despise him because of his immoral traits. Totally support you for this Larry Sanger. People like us like to learn from the leaders of yesterday but Ashley was into something that didn’t suit him or will ever suit somebody such senior as him. I despise him because of his immoral traits.

]]> By: Larry Sanger http://larrysanger.org/2012/07/the-saga-of-wikimedia-uk-and-its-chair/#comment-54413 Larry Sanger Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:44:58 +0000 http://larrysanger.org/?p=1248#comment-54413 It is highly questionable whether Ashley Van Haeften would have been banned if it had not been for the external pressure brought to bear on the Wikipedia community over issues regarding unfiltered pornography. I think this must have been the point of the Telegraph article, although I wouldn't have been the one to suggest the point to them. It was actually quite a surprise to me that they contacted me the day before the article came out. I had no idea they were working on an article. Anyway, your basic point is taken. He was not banned <em>for</em> posting pornography. It is highly questionable whether Ashley Van Haeften would have been banned if it had not been for the external pressure brought to bear on the Wikipedia community over issues regarding unfiltered pornography. I think this must have been the point of the Telegraph article, although I wouldn’t have been the one to suggest the point to them. It was actually quite a surprise to me that they contacted me the day before the article came out. I had no idea they were working on an article.

Anyway, your basic point is taken. He was not banned for posting pornography.

]]> By: Alex Perekati http://larrysanger.org/2012/07/the-saga-of-wikimedia-uk-and-its-chair/#comment-54411 Alex Perekati Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:02:46 +0000 http://larrysanger.org/?p=1248#comment-54411 I am afraid WMF has no credibility to loose, no matter if they are to release a statement condemning the action of WMUK’s recent action or they are not. WMF has lost any credibility a long time ago. Back yo Ashley Van Haeften, some people made some valid points:Ashley Van Haeften was not banned "after pornography row". One could upload as many pornographic images as one wants, one could write as many articles about porno stars as one wants, and never get banned for doing this. Ashley Van Haeften was banned for his disagreement with the Arbitration Committee, and not for pornography, and this should have been underlined in the articles about Ashley Van Haeften's affair because this is important to let people know that neither the Arbitration Committee nor WMF do absolutely nothing to stop "pornography row" that is chocking Wikipedia. I am afraid WMF has no credibility to loose, no matter if they are to release a statement condemning the action of WMUK’s recent action or they are not. WMF has lost any credibility a long time ago.

Back yo Ashley Van Haeften, some people made some valid points:Ashley Van Haeften was not banned “after pornography row”. One could upload as many pornographic images as one wants, one could write as many articles about porno stars as one wants, and never get banned for doing this. Ashley Van Haeften was banned for his disagreement with the Arbitration Committee, and not for pornography, and this should have been underlined in the articles about Ashley Van Haeften’s affair because this is important to let people know that neither the Arbitration Committee nor WMF do absolutely nothing to stop “pornography row” that is chocking Wikipedia.

]]> By: Larry Sanger http://larrysanger.org/2012/07/the-saga-of-wikimedia-uk-and-its-chair/#comment-54372 Larry Sanger Wed, 01 Aug 2012 04:22:59 +0000 http://larrysanger.org/?p=1248#comment-54372 "Cheap shot" doesn't make sense. How is it a cheap shot to point out the facts that Ashley Van Haeften has done what he has done, that he has been banned, and that the Wikimedia UK Board supports him nonetheless? Res ipsa loquitur. “Cheap shot” doesn’t make sense. How is it a cheap shot to point out the facts that Ashley Van Haeften has done what he has done, that he has been banned, and that the Wikimedia UK Board supports him nonetheless? Res ipsa loquitur.

]]> By: Gregory Kohs http://larrysanger.org/2012/07/the-saga-of-wikimedia-uk-and-its-chair/#comment-54370 Gregory Kohs Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:44:38 +0000 http://larrysanger.org/?p=1248#comment-54370 Already, predictably, the Wikipedia Signpost is calling the Telegraph article a "cheap shot", and the Wikimedia UK mailing list is trying to figure out ways to marginalize the numerous re-prints and re-tweets of the story, which are cropping up across the globe. Even a dog will show shame when you point his nose to the filthy mess he made on the kitchen floor. Wikipedians are just the opposite. They strut around and belittle everyone else when the Wikipedian's stinky pile is pointed out to them. Already, predictably, the Wikipedia Signpost is calling the Telegraph article a “cheap shot”, and the Wikimedia UK mailing list is trying to figure out ways to marginalize the numerous re-prints and re-tweets of the story, which are cropping up across the globe.

Even a dog will show shame when you point his nose to the filthy mess he made on the kitchen floor. Wikipedians are just the opposite. They strut around and belittle everyone else when the Wikipedian’s stinky pile is pointed out to them.

]]>