Jump to content

User:Scott MacDonald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cgt (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 12 July 2012 (→‎If you are in sympathy with my protest, you may indicate support below (no discussion here please):: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia should remain ideology-free


Protesting the death of a neutral community


The blackout of the English Wikipedia destroys forever the concept of its political and geographic neutrality. It means rather than an open group of international contributors, uniting solely around their commitment to writing an encyclopedia, with nothing else implied, Wikipedia is, through what can only be described as an Internet moral panic, now associated with a particular political position in a particular nation. While many, possibly most, Wikipedians may happen to hold this political position in common, it ought to have been irrelevant to editing here. Now it is not; a precedent has been set and something important has died.

Some will say, "but the Stop Online Piracy Act is so important, and it affects us, so we must do something". But here is my problem. Do I agree with opposing SOPA? Or, do I have a different opinion that makes me wish to disassociate myself from the action that is being taken in the name of the community? Either way, my opinion on a political issue is now pertinent to my association with this community. You asked me a question that ought to have been irrelevant to editing here. That is new. That is wrong. Wikipedians came here united around five pillars - and five pillars only. I was not asked, and do not wish, to negotiate a sixth. Yes I know that, even were I to vocally support SOPA, I would still be welcome here. But that I am even asked the question changes everything. For the first time, Jimbo Wales has asked, and the community has agreed, that we no longer leave our own ideologies at the door.

In protest at this action, and mourning the day that the five pillars ceased to be the sole ideology of Wikipedia, I will cease contributing on an indefinite basis.


See also:

  • Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - Yes, even a point you think is righteous.

...instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral" Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 - a different age?

If you are in sympathy with my protest, you may indicate support below (no discussion here please):

  1. — Joseph Fox 10:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Hyperbolic but true. AGK [•] 10:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. I will also be withdrawing my support.  An optimist on the run! 10:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Ditto AGK. --Philosopher Let us reason together. via alternate account 12:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Hipocrite (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  8. I understand very well what has happened, sympathize with your position, and assure you that BLPs will get decimated by the Visigoths with you not around. Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  9. Very well said. --B (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  10. Full support.  BarkingFish  14:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  11. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  12. VolunteerMarek 15:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  13. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  14. Sue Gardner should resign from the Wikimedia Foundation. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  15. I agree with you completely. This is just the next step though in a sad trend. Jersey John (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  16. I'm pretty sure I belong in this section. I don't support this blackout for a variety of reasons. That said, I don't think matching dramatics and theater with further dramatics and theater is the answer. This is like the tenth time you've quit. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  17. Ditto. I'm withdrawing my support of the blackout. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  18. The French Wikipedia is currently expressing itself against any support to the English initiative. Of course, the main reason seams to be that we started to talk about it too late. Yet, some do positively express their opposition to any form of protest. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    I agree that Sue Gardner should resign. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  19. Full support. I am anti-SOPA and actually I have the libertarian take on intellectual property. (Go pyratbyraan!) But this is outrageous. No disrupting of WP. No punishing users who are incapable even to do ANYTHING about it. Full support.Omulurimaru (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  20. Full support as well, from Canada. --RobNS 19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  21. Full support.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  22. SFB 19:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  23. Killiondude (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  24. Tenebris - I feel your pain at your having been forced to say these words. I wish you could have been spared that, but I value that you have spoken. 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  25. Agreed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a campaigning organisation. Unfortunately, that's what everyone will think it is from now onwards. Modest Genius talk 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  26. Fully support and share your perspective, and agree with Toddst1 that Sue Gardner should resign from the Wikimedia Foundation. Writegeist (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support Fully - and thank you. Michael DoroshTalk 21:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  28. WJBscribe (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  29. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  30. Very eloquent, couldn't have said it better myself --Thebirdlover (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  31. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and all in all, Wikipedia shouldn't be used for political purposes. WormTT · (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  32. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  33. Support but why are people gunning for Sue? It is Wales who is the problem.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  34. Ridiculousness. Self-righteous ridiculousness that goes against everything I believed the project to stand for. Juliancolton (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  35. It had to happen someday: Scott and I agree on something.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  36. Support. Just 3 days ago "consensus" was click-thru banner, now "blackout" despite talk Obama would veto SOPA. Must reform consensus rules. -Wikid77 02:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  37. The Bushranger One ping only 03:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  38. We seem to have jettisoned the project's treasured neutrality in a rush. By the time I discovered the poll, it was closed already. I am also concerned that so many of the support voters in the blackout poll were redlink editors, or editors with single-digit and two-digit edit counts. --JN466 04:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  39. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  40. Shearonink (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  41. It isn't just Jimbo or Sue. It's also Zack Exley. But, yes, Sue should be replaced with a hardheaded corporate type like Dick Costolo who sticks to his knitting. As I note in this blogpost of mine, the biggest outrage is the shading of the facts engaged in by the WMF, which became outright hysteria and misinformation by the time it got out to the general public.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  42. SpitfireTally-ho! 12:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  43. SeanNovack (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  44. The Five Pillars have crumbled under the weight of Hypocrisy.
  45. The fall-out of this action has yet to happen. My question is if this is a one-time act or if the Wikipedia community will do this again and again... for other "noble purposes"? I have to agree that the 5 pillars were swept aside by this action, and that consensus was clearly not achieved in the discussions either. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  46. AlexiusHoratius 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  47. Of course - political activism - No thanks, not in my name. My interest in wikipedia is that it is an educational charitable project, not the scaremongering saviour of some yet to exist and unlikely to ever exist horror or horrors. Youreallycan 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  48. Nathan T 22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  49. Exactly what Peter cohen said. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  50. C628 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  51. Edison (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  52. Pdiddyjr (talk) 19:31, 20 January 1012 (UTC) Down with SOPA and PIPA!
  53. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  54. Ramaksoud2000 (talk to me) 15:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  55. We can no longer claim to be completely neutral, and I can understand only too well how that might make one uncomfortable enough to levethis project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  56. Support. Some notes below. Ulfer (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  57. MurfleMan (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  58. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  59. ihardlythinkso fighting SOPA via a blackout cheapened Wikipedia, thus increasing the strength of its enemies.
  60. The blackout has tarnished the neutrality, perception and reputation of the Wiki community. I won't leave but this is definitely a low point since I started editing 6.5 years ago. GizzaTalk © 07:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  61. My76Strat (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  62. Support. Begoon talk 00:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  63. Wikipedia cannot claim to be neutral when it is supporting or opposing policy. Toa Nidhiki05 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  64. Mato (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  65. Support complaint. I had the same complaint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  66. Support. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  67. Support - One day, this website will be bereft of its fallacies, biases, predicaments, and discrepancies. This is that motion in infancy. RoyalMate1 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  68. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  69. Support Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  70. Support Jimbo's editor lockout was atrocious.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  71. Bit late here, but firmly support. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  72. Support I maybe very late to the party, but Wikipedia should not have been dark. Even a click banner at the top would be way better. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 12:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  73. Support --Cgtdk (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (if you must)

  • I can't help wondering Scott and friends, if you are failing to appreciate that the USA's laws on copyright and internet piracy stretch as far as Britain [1] even in cases when it's not even a British crime. Therefore, I do feel there is a hint of head burying going on here. I'm sure you will be missed Giacomo Returned 13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You may be right. These may be evil laws that ought to be oppose (although beware moral panic). However, Wikipedia isn't the place to oppose laws and take stances (even noble ones). I will continue to maintain that even if they rehouse me. How long before Wikipedia endorses the only presidential candidate explicitly against SOPA? --Scott Mac 13:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I remember the protests against Section 28 many years ago (part of an act to prevent gay literature being distributed in schools). It was claimed that the act would prevent composers like Tchaikovsky (who was gay) being played on national radio. Funnily enough, the act went through, and nothing happened. I suspect the same will happen with SOPA. Will "they" have the power to close down Wikipedia? Possibly. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't possibly say. Will they close down Wikipedia? Of course not.  An optimist on the run! 14:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • SOPA/PIPAThis user supported the SOPA/PIPA blackout!
    --Amadscientist (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The French Wikipedia is currently expressing itself against any support to the English initiative. Of course, the main reason seams to be that we started to talk about it too late. Yet, some do positively express their opposition to any form of protest. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Your argument is well expressed and the blackout is indeed at odds with the five pillars. I disagree with the idea that ideologies were left at the door though. By the nature of what we choose to write about (and what we don't) we inherently express our ideologies. Internationalism and free speech are two ideologies which are inseparable from the core nature of Wikipedia, and two which are directly affected by the SOPA. I fully respect your anti-blackout stance and its sound reasoning, however. SFB 19:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm Canadian, but SOPA seems like a bogey-man to me and no one has been able to give a coherent or rational opposition to it in any discussion I've ever seen, beyond the "but I wanna download bit torrent musixx s'more" stuff from spoiled children. Sorry, not compelling to me. As someone with IP concerns of his own, I'm not frightened by the spectre of an internet with reasonable controls.Michael DoroshTalk 22:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - as I can't find a reliable source that either supports or opposes this bold stance and as I have been editing here for too long I no longer have opinions of my own about anything (much). I do however hope you will return. Indeed, I hope we all do. Perhaps when we turn the servers off, we will discover they can't be switched back on and we will have to start again! Ben MacDui 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I think some may miss the point by falling back on the five pillars....Wikipedia is, above everything else.....a collaborative effort. There is a reason the site has almost no strict policies that must be enforced but only guidelines in which to follow. That reason is consensus. Consensus determines nearly everything that happens on the encyclopedia. We sometimes tend to forget that this is a contributor effort of many different voices and views that all try to perceive the best interpretation of the guidelines as established. We sometimes have to "ignore" a basic guideline to allow consensus to stand. This page bothers me only in that it is going against consensus. And THAT is the real shame of the criticism. It's not accepting the consensus of the community.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's the problem. Is this a community that writes an encyclopedia, or an encyclopedia written by a community. Is consensus king, or is it a tool, operating within the 5 pillars, that decides how to write an encyclopedia. I consensus is King, then logically, the community, like any other community can express corporate views on anything it likes. It could decide to endorse congressmen who support its legal positions. Sure, dissent would be tolerated, as in any civilised community - but it would be dissent. I am not dissenting the community's opposition to SOPA, I am dissenting the question being asked. I am dissenting that you have created the category of dissenters. This was, I understood, a common endevor to write an encyclopedia, nothing more, never anything more.--Scott Mac 20:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Scott, the position you hold appears to be based on a skewed view of Wikipedia. As a person who's attempted to engage with this community and edit pages as a woman and a person of color, I don't see Wikipedia as apolitical as you do. A lot of the discussions and issues I came across were very political in nature and the consensus you speak of often came down to a majority of users who were privileged placing their ideas and experience over those who were not. Editing Wikipedia is a political act and always has been. Interesting that you don't see it that way. --Theangryblackwoman (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Generally speaking, Wikipedia's coverage of African American intellectuals and writers is non-existent, rudimentary or inept. And I quite agree that participation in Wikipedia is political. Wikipedia says to the world, Here is where you can edit the no.1 Google result for practically any topic under the sun. How could editing that not have a political dimension? --JN466 08:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I should be ashamed for expressing my opinion here (or on any other Wikipedia talk page)? Sounds like you're saying that everyone should accept the will of the majority on the SOPA page as the Gospel According to WP, that there should be no further discussion or dissent... Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving a bit of explanation here, and removing it from the list. (Your talk page, your rules.) In years of editing, I never created a Wikipedia account, in part due to the inevitability of social dynamics and partisanship. Wikipedia has been slipping down this slippery slope for at least as long as I have been participating in discussion pages. But I agree with you 100% - a clearly-visible line has been crossed. And I feel your pain at your having been forced to say these words. I wish you could have been spared that, but I value that you have spoken. - Tenebris 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • To say that Wikipedia must "remain" ideology-free is fallacious.

    We exist because we have a large community that came together because of ideology. Wikipedia has never been "idology-free". It has a very strong and – in the end – very revolutionary ideology: share all the knowledge to everyone. That's the opposite of the direction initiatives like SOPA and its buyers (large media companies) seek to impose ("consume the knowledge we select, in the manner we prescribe"). — Coren (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh gulp, choke and vommit - Coren appears to be quite right. Giacomo Returned 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it is an opinion - and valid. However, we came to share what we created - not because we believed everything should be shared. His interpretation of SOPA, his political objection to those he believes are funding it, and his genaralising on the "direction" are standpoints which some Wikipedians will share (maybe even I do) but the sharing of that ideology is not essential to the shared goals of writing an encyclopedia. (And the notion that SOPA - how ever evil it would be - would lead to someone shutting down wikipedia is scaremongering of the worst order)--Scott Mac 20:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that's absolutely right, and even though we haven't always (or perhaps even ever) seen eye-to-eye, I hope you'll return once the student protest is over. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No but it is certain to make keeping it more onerous (in money and effort). It may well be a burden we can bear (the Foundation wouldn't be ruined by having to hire a few more people for compliance and legal stuff), but many smaller sites will not. I'm having a hard time avoiding invoking Godwin here (first they came...) so I'll rest on a more rational-economic argument: that a bad law can be weathered by the bigger organizations does not make it any less important to do what we can to protect those that will be buffeted away. It's not even philosophical or altruistic; as diversity of user-contributed contents gets affected, our position will become increasingly weakened. Monocultures are death. — Coren (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
If it is such a self-evidently bad law, then there's no way it will pass in a democracy. The reason you oppose it, must be that you fear that enough people will think otherwise that it (or something like it) might pass. What you are trying to do is say "this is bad" and "bad is bad" thus opposing it isn't taking anything but a self-evident stance - and doesn't breach neutrality. Sorry, you might persuade me it is bad - you might even persuade me to join you at the barricades, you will not persuade me that this isn't other than a political stance. The irony is that this is the same community that was loathe to ban self-describing paedophiles on sight, because we shouldn't take stances. But when it feels anti-libertarian and it involves US politics, the stance changes. Really, it is neutral to defend the impact on "smaller sites" over copyright owners - you can do that while remaining neutral? Fine, but I want no part of it. It is the same "but they are evil" mentality that encourages activists like Willbeback to manipulate BLPs and other such righteous biases.--Scott Mac 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I honestly do not know if you are being earnest in your optimism, but I'll presume you are. Hoping that a bad law gets shut down when it is paid for and strictly to the benefit of the very media companies who are the primary or sole source of information about that law to 95% of the voters is... ignoring past history of how "democracies" work.

It may well be scuttled if enough people know about it, have been informed, and make their voices heard. We can help with the first two and, personally, I think that like the Librarian associations, the EFF, and even the ACLU (whom I generally despise) we have a moral obligation to.

Going black for a day may well be a drastic move, but it will generate awareness and exposure and reduce the probability that it gets snuck back in under the radar once people get bored (it wouldn't be the first law like that). — Coren (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Scott, If you are going to quote Dick Costolo for that twitter post, at least use the correct context. If you follow the twitter steam, you will notice the followup steam (I have no idea how to link individual twitter posts as i don't use the medium, but here is a transcript:

  • (Dick) "that's just silly. Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish."
  • (Jimmy) "Can you confirm your support for Wikipedia's protest? I agree with you that twitter should not go dark."
  • (Dick) @jimmy_wales was only referring to Twitter in response to explicit tweet suggesting we lacked courage for not shutting down.....
  • (Dick) @jimmy_wales eh, i said "a global..." not "our global ..." so i suppose it's my fault but was reacting to specific "twitter should..." tweet.

Correction was apparently also tweeted to "The Daily Telegraph" and it seems they are correcting it. You might want to correct it above, as it seems you simply quoted an incorrect news source. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a minor point, but in what you've quoted, Dick Costolo did not confirm any support for Wikipedia's protest (as Jimmy asked him to). He simply backed off any criticism of Wikipedia (as Jimmy backed off criticism of Twitter) by saying he was only speaking of Twitter. So, perhaps his views are irrelevant, or perhaps he chickened out of critiquing Jimmy to his face, it is all supposition. (Unless there's more to it.) Anways, I don't think this one swings any one.--Scott Mac 21:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You have my fullest support and I will myself be on indefinite break from 0500 tomorrow. It shouldn't have come to this at all. Best wishes, Scott. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Although I do support the protest, I also agree that Wikipedia is not the place to explicitly support or oppose something. Yet, I've been mentioning in various places (the original blackout discussion, Jimbo's talkpage) that this is an opportunity both to discuss the future of Wikipedia and to present a multifaceted dialectic, not merely a one-sided protest, to Congress rather than requesting that users flood them with calls. I once thought that the world would end before or when Wikipedia started turning to any form of advocacy, but we (most of us) are still here, the world has not ended, and somehow the show must go on.
It is a sad day to those who must leave, but on Wikipedia doing so is a fundamental right. I myself will miss anyone I've worked with who does leave, yet am commited to carrying on the work in the next wiki-era. ~AH1 (discuss!) 23:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • @Scott - "If it is such a self-evidently bad law, then there's no way it will pass in a democracy" (sorry nearly choked on my cornflakes there) - errrrr, no, spectacularly bad laws get passed fairly regularly in democracies.....look, I am quite torn, my initial feeling was cool to negative about the blackout, but I'll defer to those who know about the threat and heed their urgency. I've been involved in native plant and medical societies and the question of politicisation always comes up, with some arguing the group should be apolitical, as if politics and everyday life are somehow separate. They're not, and the more we all engage with our lawmakers and make our voices heard the better. Dunno if I'd a gone as far as a blackout but I can see the rationale clearly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If course democracies pass laws which I regard as spectacularly bad (hell, they vote for wars that are evil), but unless the democracy has been subverted (in which cases it isn't a democracy) obviously some people, even if actually a powerful minority, DO support the laws. So, they cannot be "self-evidently" bad - only evident to you. Look, I'm not appealing for political naivity, not at all. I'd encourage all citizens to engage with legislators(I read "lawnmakers" - but that's my unfamiliarity with the US term). If you are concerned about SOPA, protest please. I am, myself, politically active - and find indifference to politics and justice quite moronic. However, the genius of Wikipedia has been its ability to transcend political assessments - even widely held ones. We welcome conservative Christians, Muslims, Atheists, libertarians and authoritarians, liberals and social conservatives, free-marketeers and socialists - and providing you providing you edit by the five pillars we don't give a damn (indeed preferably don't tells us at all). That's what was wrong with political userboxes, and indeed it is why only an admin can view this diff. When the community, as a collective, starts deciding which political opinions it supports and sees itself as part of a particular free-cultural movement, then it forces potential users to ask not the minimalist "do I want to contribute to an encyclopedia" but with wider "do I want to associate with this community" - and if they do associate it means they are forced, on Wikipedia, to be part of a process of discerning, and choosing, stances. Now, some will say "we will only take stances in issues that affect the community." OK, but we will have to judge each one - and that will be also political. That's not why I edit wikipedia, and I suspect it isn't why you edit either. If people want to club together to fight SOPA, great. Go join the EFF.--Scott Mac 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Obviously I am on the other side of the debate here, and believe this is a case where such an action is justifiable. But for you, and others who disagree with this action, I suggest rather than walking away (though that is also a valid personal choice), to use a bit of your own activism in trying to convince Wikimedia to pass a bylaw forbidding such an action in the future. For myself, I support this action, but would also support such a proposal - this is clearly viewed as an extraordinary case, but at the same time, I think we're both aware that Wikipedia would not do the same if the Canadian or British parliaments were to consider similar laws. Engage the community on that basis: "We took this action because the community (or part of it) felt it was necessary. But, this should not be our arena, so lets ask the foundation to pass a resolution stating we won't do this again." It might gain traction, it might not. But it may be a question worth pursuing. Resolute 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
        • A few years ago, I would have said that Wikipedia interrupting its service for the purposes of political lobbying was unthinkable - and most Wikipedians would have agreed. Now Jimbo and the WMF have led the community to do just that. This case will only be extraordinary until the next extraordinary case comes. With respect, your perspective started this movement, if you are afraid of where it might lead, you put the breaks on. Wikipedia is big and usually immovable, but you may find the breaks don't get traction at all next time. It will certainly be harder.--Scott Mac 00:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't fear that we stand on the edge of a slippery slope, but I am also not going to simply disregard your viewpoint because my own is different. I am simply offering a suggestion on where one might consider taking this debate going forward. Resolute 00:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
            • We have already crossed my line in the sand. For me, the damage is done - there is nothing much to debate. If you think we're at, but not over, the line - then you need to draw yours and I wish you good luck in defending it.--Scott Mac 01:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm already involved in an active arbitration case because I drew a line in the sand. It has also reminded me that Wikipedia is far more political than we often realize. Like you, I would rather just write articles. Sometimes you have to do what you feel is right, even if it is an inconvenience. If leaving the project, either for some period of time or permanently, is what you feel is right, then I wish you luck in your future endeavours. Resolute 01:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Re:Resolute's post starting "Obviously"... Why would the Foundation possibly passing a resolution or bylaw against acting in a similar fashion in the future actually stop that from happening? They get to make their own rules, couldn't they just change them again the next time they want to act? Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
          • This is true. But, this protest was accepted by the Foundation as the will of the community (whether you agree with this or not is beside my point). If the community were to come back and say it is not interested in such actions again, the Foundation would hopefully respect that the same. It would become a matter of trust, I agree. Resolute 02:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just 3 days ago "consensus" was US-only click-thru banner, so I didn't worry. Then a massive "consensus swing" (who? when?) decided a global blackout because click-thru was not in-your-face enough. This was despite news that Obama would likely veto the bills, due to fears of economic slowdown during a U.S. presidential election year. We need to write a guideline/policy for "WP:Wikipedia is not in-your-face". The best news is that numerous people are upset that rough-consensus was not really followed. Meanwhile, just try to treat this as a research experiment to see what happens when English Wikipedia does a user-lockout for the masses of users w/o consensus. Then, we can work to set policies to control such actions in the future, such as a last-minute, binding "stop-action poll" if something seems contrary to a rough consensus. -Wikid77 03:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Scott, regarding "bad laws" passed by democracies, one phenomenon is that "moral panics" often cause hastily-drafted laws that cause unintended problems. One could point to the constitutional amendment that lead to the Prohibition, for instance. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Anent "Prohibition" - it was discussed for decades and was not passed in a "moral panic" but due to the ostensible issue of use of grain during wartime, with a slight anti-German undercurrent. Fascinating area - but "moral panic" it was not. Collect (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
        • That is interesting, so the federal prohibition did start out as such: http://americanhistory.about.com/od/prohibitionera/a/prohibition.htm - I'll have to take a look at some other more recent laws. I recall that there were some more recently passed laws in the USA that were accused of being "moral panic" laws... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Far better examples are the "(Insert victim's name here) Law"s found not only in the US but around the world, usually in response to a heinous crime of some sort against the victim. Especially sex crimes - there are cities in the US where "registered sex offenders" (which can include an offense for public urination at night) are zoned into living under an Interstate overpass as their only legal abode. Really. Collect (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that is unnecessarily harsh. I agree that people need to carefully consider laws that are passed, rather than simply trying to pass something because it appears like it is doing something. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • One other thing - In regards to Jimbo's quote to 29 December 2005, he's saying Wikipedia shouldn't be partisan. And the anti-SOPA action has not broken that idea. SOPA was supported by people in both political parties and opposed by people in both political parties. I think there is a difference between being partisan/engaging in a plain issue advocacy, and in general politically trying to ensure your survival or in general promoting freedom of information access. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Toa Nidhiki said "Wikipedia cannot claim to be neutral when it is supporting or opposing policy." - As said above, I believe Jimbo is saying Wikipedia shouldn't be partisan. Wikipedia can be neutral partisan-wise but still oppose particular policies. This particular policy was supported and opposed by people from both major US political parties. Jimbo meant partisan in terms of political party, and also in terms of traditional "hot button" issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). I consider the SOPA/PIPA issues to be distinct from those issues. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to review the definition of "partisan": an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. Wikipedia is partisan and the cause is SOPA/PIPA. Toddst1 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, you are right that the word "partisan" can also be used to used to refer to adherents to an idea/cause too. Back in 2005 when Jimbo was mentioning that ideal about not being partisan, I am not sure if he even considered the idea of a particular US law that had the potential to disrupt Wikipedia operations. I could ask him about that, and see what says.
While it is good to have well-established, consistent ideas, it is also good to consider one's own survival. Wikipedia has to remain neutral so the organization as a whole shouldn't take sides in "culture war" issues of any country, and the article text bodies should be neutral in all cases, including those related to SOPA/PIPA. However it's perfectly reasonable for the Wikimedia Foundation to oppose SOPA/PIPA because SOPA/PIPA directly opposes the foundation's interests by forcing it to undergo increased costs and burdens. The word "partisan" also has negative connotations, so in light of what you said, I would label the foundation's SOPA-PIPA activism as reasonable partisanship to show a positive connotation of "partisanship." I would also stress this case as being an outstanding "exception." That means that an exception to the general rule of "not being partisan" can be accepted if the foundation's interests are being directly threatened, and that since the ideal is otherwise held, then that means Wikipedia should still be considered "non-partisan."
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A Request to block me, since you still got them admin powers

Doc, since you still have access to the block button, can you please block my account at any point before the "In less than xxx hours" (xxx=when you read this) for a duration of "less than xxx hours + 24 hours" and put in the block summary "Self-requested block for the duration of Wikipedia SOPA blackout in protest of the idiotic, politically motivated, wrong-headed, and disruptive blackout itself" (feel free to rewrite the block summary in terms which you think capture the point - I trust your judgment on this).

It's not as extreme as a "I'm leaving Wikipedia" thing and it's designed to take advantage of the dumb assness of the lockout itself but it will be in my block record forever and I can point to it in the future with pride.

I would also encourage others to follow in suit, get themselves blocked with the appropriate block summaries in place - at some point it will probably be a badge of honor.

VolunteerMarek 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

PS. If you need a "real" reason I can go ahead and say what I really think about some of the "high profile" people involved in pushing this through, starting with Jimbo, Coren, Risker and all the other......

Informational note: if you make personal attacks with an admission of premeditation beforehand, your block will not be temporary. Please keep this in mind, m.o.p 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Informational note: what if I premeditate personal attacks beforehand and admit it but never carry them out, Mr. Master of Puppets (whom I may or may not be premeditating personal attacks against as I type this, which I may or may not admit to)? Can we have some grown ups around please?VolunteerMarek 02:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a grown up and I too say don't be silly. Wikipedia needs editors like you and Scott, even though I may not always agree with either of you. Or in Scott's case ever agree. But conformity is death. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
No this is the point Malleus where one is supposed to link to Orwell's 1984 or something...oh well, an opportunity lost...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not simply reflect on the truth? Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
To quote a song "And what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths...are mine the same as yours?" And besides, the WP mantra is "verifiability, not truth." Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Only to the simple-minded. So many here misunderstand what that policy really means. What it doesn't mean, for instance, is that it's OK to include something that's demonstrably untrue (unlike truth, untruth can easily be proven) simply because it's verifiable. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
VolunteerMarek, don't be silly.--Scott Mac 01:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
It can't be sillier than "I will cease contributing on an indefinite basis.".VolunteerMarek 02:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
How about just uploading random photos from your camera of where you are, showing something else besides editing? I dunno, or you could just skip the camera bit I guess.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the whole point is to be "non-constructive" (without necessarily being "disruptive") - what kind of protest is it where you say, "well, I'm not gonna show up for work for awhile... but let me come and wash yer dishes at your home, boss". You're being constructive in a very non-constructive way.VolunteerMarek 03:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
It's much different than doing your boss's dishes. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait, err, what? "high profile" people involved in pushing this through? The sum total of my involvement is to vote in favour of the blackout, maybe three or four comments on the talk page, and this page here. I haven't been in communication with anyone at the Foundation about the blackout, I haven't participated in its organization or implementation either. Where did you get that from? — Coren (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discuss creating stop-action polls

Obviously, the next step is to create a guideline for a conducting stop-action polls, as a "panic button" (or cancel of the "self-destruct sequence"). In this case, imagine the news headlines:

"Proposed blackout of Wikpedia cancelled by stop-action poll of users - Using a clever new policy, many users invoked a WP:STOPACT poll to cancel the proposed shutdown once it was discovered that it was not really a rough consensus of the active users.

At first, I had thought the global blackout really was widely approved, until I heard all the recent complaints against the blackout. People thought it would be US-only, and no more than a very, very annoying click-thru banner, but that is not what happened in the final 24 hours. Please discuss. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia traditionally veers between extreme apathy and massive overreaction - it's an artifact of the way "consensus" rewards those who shout loudest. Besides, Arbcom and Jimbo both love empty gestures which require minimal effort to implement, and this fits the bill nicely. 173.164.243.154 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea! For a vote of this magnitude to represent “community” consensus, the initiators should have notified every WP contributor in good time, e.g. on their talk page. The result may well have been different. As someone usually working on articles rather than participating in the more emotionally charged areas of the site, I was unaware there even was a last-minute vote. The way this was handled is indicative of a lack of respect for the common WP contributor and betrays an ignorance (assuming good faith here) of democratic processes. The blackout may well end up generating the wrong kind of publicity for those who sought it so ardently. DracoE 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The blackout will cause an influx of EFF types who will cause endless well intentioned disruption because they think policies should apply to other people, not them; it will also make "Wikipedia" synonymous to the broader public with "copyright violation and mismanagement". Most people couldn't give a damn about SOPA but will instinctively distrust what will look like a lone-wolf stand. I strongly suspect that Jimmy and Sue thought the Googles and Microsofts of the world would back this action and give it some credibility; in fact, Wikipedia is now being linked by all the world's media with Reddit and I Can Haz Cheezburger. 173.164.243.154 (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Fighting back against the status quo

Something that is really disturbing me right now is how a number of users are talking about editors who are upset over this including some who want to leave Wikipedia over this blackout and saying good riddance to anybody leaving, some some rather cruel and heartless commentary about those who have protested this action treating those who have objected as being some part of a lunatic fringe group that doesn't need to be listened to at all.

At the moment, I will simply have to dismiss such rhetoric as the impetuous nature of youth who simply are without a clue as to how valuable volunteer labor really is, especially experienced volunteer labor. I am hoping that those who are watching this page and trying to make sure that stuff like this blackout never happens again would at least stand up and defend those who for whatever reason are leaving this project... with the hope that at least some of those leaving might be encouraged to simply take a Wikibreak rather than leaving the project for good.

Comments like the following really make me angry:

""Who left because of SOPA blackout?" Who cares?" - User:Fred Gandt
"Yes it is sad to see skilled and productive editors leave, but long as a dedicated core group remains, I think we'll be okay." - User:RJHall
"Anyone who left because of this was probably going to leave soon anyway and this is just a convenient excuse to angrily storm off." - User:Beeblebrox

If you don't see what is wrong with such statements, it shows that Wikipedia is a dying project and its days are numbered. I hope that isn't the case, and that perhaps somebody can fight back against those with an attitude like this. If I'm wrong, I'd love to have somebody try to explain why that is so. This is not how you treat long-time contributors, people who have been integral to getting Wikipedia to the point where it is today.

The easy thing to do here is to ignore such comments and more significantly ignore how Wikipedia is changing. I don't think all is lost and that Wikipedia can be revived and grow to achieve the potential that it had when those who started to volunteer for this project so many years ago tried to establish the guiding principles that created this project in the first place. What is found on this page is the loyal opposition to the blackout action, not people who hate Wikipedia in the first place. If that can't be explained clearly, then this whole cause is for naught. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no longer Wikipedia. It's very sad, and it is much more than irritating. Right now, I feel betrayed. I can only hope that the supporters of the current trend will be honest, that they will admit that what they're doing effectively, and what a number of them want more or less openly to do, is to forget the first pillar and part of the second and to change Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to the idea of an encyclopedia that would not only produce but also advocate free content. I have nothing against the existence of an encyclopedia written from a free-content advocate point of view, as I have nothing against the existence of Conservapedia, for instance. Actually, even if I'm more than strongly opposed to the idea that "Wikipedia" (the website and the community) could become such a thing, in the absolute, there would be nothing wrong about it, if the Five Pillars were accordingly modified.
Of course I'm not at all a defeatist. I think we must defend to the end the Five Pillars. I am sure that our "interpretation" of them is not only an interpretation but also what they are in actuality. Even though I think that the deed has already been done, there is still the possibility of a reaction, to limit its effects, by reasserting that there is no way the Pillars can be overriden, and that the action was wrong. It is absolutely necessary to expose all the in and outs of what is at stake (we have a survey for that currently on WP fr) and to try to convince the community. I'm not sure that this will work in the end, but it is important, and it imposes to reveal the flaws or the biases that can appear in some interventions. Because it seems clear to me that if there are some people who don't like Wikipedia as it is, they are in the ranks of our opponents. I'm not surprized by your quotations, Robert Horning : for some of our opponents, and above all for those who have a view of WP that doesn't respect the Pillars, it is absolutely necessary to evacuate our resistance and to dismiss strongly our views, sometimes by using pleasant reasonings that are able to convince a quick reader but cannot withstand analysis, sometimes without even bothering to argue (it can go as far as insults). Some of those who resort to insults do that because they know that in fact we are right. We have to answer.
If we lose ? Or if we have already lost ? I cannot abandon the idea of Wikipedia. I cannot abandon the Five Pillars. But the shock caused by the fact that a part of the historic community has permitted that these Pillars be violated is nothing in comparison with the shock I would have if the Five Pillars no longer existed as they are now, somewhere on the Internet, to support a project of encyclopedia. So, if this evolution of "Wikipedia" is unavoidable, OK. I will be resigned. But I will be resigned only for the site and its community. Because the idea of Wikipedia that I love, the one that lives in the Five Pillars and only in them, without any other consideration, this idea that has permitted to do the "impossible" during all these years, can live elsewhere. A day may come when this historic "Wikipedia" advocates the election of such candidate against such other candidate. A day may come when it is compulsory to be a supporter of I-don't-know-what-free-philosophy in order to contribute to this historic "Wikipedia". Who can say now what will be this "Wikipedia" in ten years ? Two years ago, the Pillars were observed, and few could have suspected that we would see what we experience now. Today, there has been an "exceptionnal" departure from one or two Pillars, which, to our eyes, questions or even ruins the whole structure. In a few years, the community may, or may not, do what I've written above... So, a day may come when this "Wikipedia" does that. But if there is in front of that historic "Wikipedia" another project, founded for example on a fork, a project that has morally taken the torch of what was Wikipedia before this turn, I will be glad. In the future, the "guiding principles that created [Wikipedia] in the first place" can be those of another project, that would, then, be much more true to Wikipedia than what I fear "Wikipedia" risks to be. Ulfer (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
"Who can say now what will be this "Wikipedia" in ten years ?" I can assist you by illustrating the future in the present (which has now past, but is good until 2022). Wikipedia, in 2022, in a twitter sized summary, "Marginalization by the public was fought by corporate and government information brokers".
To expand with examples, Wikipedia failed to hold the public perception as a Utopian encyclopedia, chief amongst the reasons for it's demise was the failure to embody the 'five pillars' within it's structure. In Roman times the public enjoyed the spectator sport of gladiators, lions, and public, graphic, death. In Wikipedia times violence is denied in exchange for public participation, where demagogues circle like vultures around the killing grounds of the ANI. Where a popular activist cause attracts such a swarm of supporters that an environment is created where any action proposed, and all actions proposed, are met with a resounding yes. "would you like A, or B ? YES WE WOULD. Would you like A ? YES. But would you like it instead of B ? YES. which do you prefer ? YES. what about C ? YES. Well which is it, A, B, or C ? YES. YES. YES. New arrivals to Wikipedia, like patients new to the Doctors office expect to find at some point a professional embodiment of the medical profession, but rather than a Doctor, they find a cleaner, someone who is entrusted with they keys to the office, who might just possibly know something about medicine, so why not ask anyway, as you've come this far. Democracy is a system that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve,* and wikipedia failed to deliver even that much.
While the public grew discontented with the failures of Wikipedia, alternative websites with alternative structures gained popularity, which was countered by people who wanted to keep the internet free *. Alternative sites were given the public profile Google and others saw fit to provide. Penyulap talk 11:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Most well deserved Barnstar I've ever delivered

The Barnstar of Sanity
You are one of the few people to take action on this and not forsake your principles to support a protest against the core values of Wikipedia. I too believe that the protest was unwarranted but I never would have been able to sacrifice my time on here to boycott the protest like you did. For being much more braver and willing to take a stand against this than everyone else was, I award you a well-deserved barnstar. Thebirdlover (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Scott, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk

Hi Scott, wondering if you had any comments on the article? -- Marek.69 talk 09:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Scott MacDonald

User:Scott MacDonald, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scott MacDonald and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Scott MacDonald during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)



I support your right to express your opinion, but, per guidelines, you can't use your user page this way. If you want to do this follow this example and create a page for it.

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Except for the fact that editors pretty unanimously have said he most certainly can use his talk page this way. Collect (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
For clarity, the nomination has been closed as Speedy keep by User:PeterSymonds. --Philosopher Let us reason together. via alternate account 13:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Media mention

This page was mentioned in Digital Trends here. Cla68 (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


MSU Interview

Dear Scott MacDonald,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Sincerely,


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Entry on Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson

Dear Scott,

I hope this is the right way to get in touch with you. I went to create a Wikipedia page on the Icelandic businessman Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson, which I intend to start off by translating the corresponding Icelandic Wikipedia entry. However, Wikipedia says that I need to contact you because you deleted the previous English entry on Jón Ásgeir:

23:04, 29 October 2010 Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) deleted page Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)

Hopefully you're okay with me translating the existing Icelandic article? I'll ensure, of course, that it doesn't commit any G10 or similar offences?

Alaric Hall Alarichall (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012


ICHTHUS

January 2012
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Scott MacDonald. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scott_MacDonald&oldid=501968290"