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