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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
