Hari Prasad Nadig <hpna...@gmail.com> [2014-05-21 07:48:46 +0530]: > I strongly object to the attitude that you (and Gautham as well, perhaps to > the same extent, on Twitter[1]) have shown in your comments when taking on > the strong opposition by community members to CIS's proposal. Whatever your > affiliations may be, this is no way of treating community members - whether > you recognize yourself to be part of it or not.
Could you point me to one instance where I have actually treated a
community member unfairly and impolitely? Would you have even a
*single* instance of firm proof rather than mere insinuations of a bad
"attitude"?
> I further take *strong objection* to the words like "“Don’t wrestle with
> pigs:... " or comparison to the "Dog in the Manger" story even if it serves
> as "metaphor" for your perspective.
A. Could you please indicate where I have used the words you have put in
quotes?
B. I don't understand what you are taking "strong objection" to.
B1. Do you strongly object to people believing that trolling is bad?
Do you honestly believe that viewing trolling as a bad thing is in
itself objectionable?
B2. Or do you strongly object to people believing that some of this
e-mails on this list are trollish? Do you believe that every mail on
this list is helpful? If you do feel there are only good and
substantive contributions to this list, then I have a fundamentally
different viewpoint and we will have to disagree.
B2. Or do you strongly object to metaphors?
This doesn't seem to be the case, since I used a quote by
Nietzsche which contained a metaphor.
B3. Or do you strongly object to metaphors involving animals of a
species other than homo sapiens sapiens? Do you believe that Aesop's
fables and the Jataka tales shouldn't ever be looked upon as lessons
about the human condition?
B4. Or do you strongly object to those who hold viewpoints contrary
to yours?
Given what you've stated, I'm unable to say which of B{1-4} is the basis
of your strong objection.
> I fail to understand the animosity and hostility being shown towards
> community members who're speaking out even if they're quite vocal about it.
> Some of these people have dedicated years of their lives to Wikimedia
> without expecting anything in return and continue to do so.
If you stepped in to curb those who *actually* display animosity and
hostility on this mailing list, rather than directing your attention
solely on my respectful mail, perhaps this e-mail would elicit greater
respect from me.
> Treat community members with respect. The lengthy rants shall then stand to
> get more respect and not otherwise.
I take the strongest objection to your characterisation of my measured
response as a "rant". Demeaning the courteous writing of a fellow
community-member and dismissing it as a "rant"[1] is no way to
positively engage.
[1]: Various definitions of "rant" include: "wild or impassioned
speech"; "to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger: to complain in a
way that is unreasonable"; a "tirade or a diatribe".
I also take the strongest objection to any characterisation of my
treatment of fellow community members as disrespectful in any manner.
There is not a iota of truth in that allegation.
> It is quite unsettling to hear that the anonymous id created just for the
> comments for FDC proposal on meta is yours. Like Ravi rightly pointed out,
> you should have either used your existing account to comment or made your
> affiliations clear before adding your comments there. You may just have
> ended up influencing the FDC review in an unethical way by doing so.
A. I take the strongest objection to your statement that I may have
influenced the FDC review in an unethical manner. You have made that
comment in a flippant manner with not a shred of evidence to to back it
up; it is nothing but rank libel.
B. I cannot use a "unified account" or merge accounts, since there is
another Wikipedia user (the DE Wikipedia, IIRC) who created his account
before I did. If you know of a way I can, please do let me know. I
would love to claim the same username across all Wikimedia portals.
C. Thank you for questioning my "ethics" alone for being "anonymous" and
excluding:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AdvisoryParty
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Teri_Pettit
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DiggyBaby
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seekingfbi
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OhHellYeahYes!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chaukalagaya
Two hurrahs for neutrality!
Lastly, I agree strongly with Ravi: Let us focus on real issues. In
that spirit, I am no longer going to continue contributing to this
thread, which only detracts from the signal-to-noise ratio. This thread
is an exemplar of what I noted is my original response on this thread as
my misguided hope.
--
Pranesh Prakash
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
-------------------
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
