‘ZOE’ – Some of the Comments directed to this person by Wikipedians themselves (extracted from Wikipedia)
I do believe I have a strong case that Zoe violated the wikipedia's policies and procedures. I didn't make that case out of respect for her fans.
Yes, I do believe my comments on her page are a positive contribution to the wikipedia. I believe there is a lesson to be learned from where she lapsed. Her most serious flaw was an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge she may have made a mistake. This is a bad flaw in a wikipedia editor, and it is a terrible flaw in an administrator.
I question whether you should have excised my comment without contacting me first. I think I am a respected contributor to the wikipedia. And I believe that my record shows, that I comply with important wikipedia policies and procedures, like WP:CIV, which Zoe did not.
Wikipedia is not a hagiography. Let's learn from our mistakes. Let's willingly and graciously acknowledge when we realized we made a mistakes. Let's willingly and graciously acknowledge when someone is civil when they point out we made a mistakes. Let's learn from others mistakes, even if they are our mentors, who we generally admire. You don't think Jimbo Wales is above criticism, do you? Do you think he would claim he was above criticism?
Then why are you suggesting Zoe should be held up as some kind of perfect example? She made mistakes. And anyone who insists on characterizing everyone she acted against as a vandal, is also making a mistake. -- Geo Swan 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You're just not going to make any friends here, or anywhere, with that attitude. Zoe has been unfairly criticised previously, and the community has made an effort to retain her, because she is a valuable contributor. Everybody makes mistakes. But to say that if I eat slugs, but I also eat flamingoes, I am not a slug-eater is a non-starter. I strongly advise you to stop. I have no prejudice against you, but if I see you behaving in ways that are injurious to Wikipedia, you will see me taking sides against you. It is your choice. It always has been. Happy editing! Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find your reply confusing. In particular I haven't a clue what you meant to say with your analogy about slug-eaters and flamingo-eaters.
Yes, everyone makes mistakes. I do my best to acknowledge when I make mistakes. Acknowledging when one makes mistakes is extremely important to build a community where the members can count on one another and trust one another. Acknowledging she may have made a mistake is something Zoe proved unable to do in her interactions with me. And it was something she proved unable to do in her last dialogue with Jimbo Wales on WP:AN.
Should we forgive these lapses, because everyone makes mistakes? I don't think so. Of course an ordinary mistake or the normal number of ordinary mistakes, should be forgiveable, provided the mistake maker is willing to acknowledge the possibility of their fallibility, because that it the first step in avoiding the repetition of that kind of mistake.
Of course we should all be protected from unfair criticism. That includes those of us who aren't vandals who should be protected from having Zoe's fans characterize us as vandals. Zoe's fans should not characterize all those who were on the receiving end of her exercise of authority as vandals. It is insulting, and a violation of WP:NPA.
Yes, I am critical of the instances when Zoe proved unwilling or unable to be civil to those who disagree with her. Let me try to understand what you are trying to tell me. You aren't trying to tell me that you will defend Zoe from all criticism, even fully justified criticism, are you? I am going to assume good faith and assume you meant something other than that.
One of the points in your reply I think I completely agree with. If we want to improve the wikipedia, or if we want to prevent the wikipedia's new visibility, and popularity, from introducing a taste of the partisanship one sees on the blogosphere, we have to challenge instances of article editing, or talk page discussions, that we think are damaging to the wikipedia.
We do agree on this, don't we?
It is my honest opinion that Zoe's lack of civility, failure to acknowledge error, and the partisanship she allowed to slip into her exercise of authority made her a fair candidate for challenges. It would not concern me if Zoe returned to contributing to the wikipedia, so long as she either (1) stepped down from being an administrator, or (2) started openly acknowledging the possibility she too is capable of error, and that those who disagree with her are not necessarily enemies, and are entitled to a measure of civility, so long as they are civil to her.
Zoe has fans. That is unquestionable, given the number who have come forward to offer encouragement after her announcement of her departure. But I believe you are mistaken to think that admiration is universal. About a week after my first encounter with Zoe, and her lack of civility, I encountered a guy who became a horribly malicious and persistent wikistalker. My wikistalker showed all the clues that he was a sockpuppet. A more experienced wikipedian suggested to me that he was a sockpuppet of Zoe. I was skeptical then. And I don't believe it now. But it shows that she is not universally admired. This campaign to keep her contributing to the wikipedia — were there any other manifestations of it beyond the several dozen fans who left messages on her talk page following her announcement of her departure?
In my comment of January 30th I acknowledged that the dozen or so fans who had already expressed their distress over her announcement of her departure regarded her as a valuable contributor to the wikipedia. They said that they regarded her as a talented editor and writer. I was willing to give her talented editing and writing the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, however, when I took a look at her contribution history, looking for examples of her talented editing and writing, I couldn't find any examples of her editing and writing. A short review of her recent contributions didn't show me any examples of her writing or editing, let alone talented instances thereof. All of the contributions I saw were participation in {{afd}} fora, or uncivil comments to people like myself who were mystified by her exercise of authority.
It would really help me understand why some wikipedians regard her contribution as so valuable if I had some examples of contributions that her fans saw as valuable.
Finally, you made a couple of comments I would really appreciate you clarifying.
You made the comment: "You're just not going to make any friends here, or anywhere, with that attitude." — Could you please be specific about what you regard as my attitude, and what, in particular, has triggered your concern about it?
You made the comment: "I have no prejudice against you, but if I see you behaving in ways that are injurious to Wikipedia, you will see me taking sides against you." Do you think there was some aspect of the three "curb your enthusiasm" comments I left on Zoe's talk page were injurious to the wikipedia?
Maybe it shouldn't be necessary for me to say this, but these are all serious questions. And I am doing my best to have a serious, civil discussion with you.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to explain to you that there is no merit in what you are trying to achieve. If you're not willing to listen, that is your problem alone. I have taken time to explain myself clearly, and it seems that given the choice I recommended to you, you have chosen poorly. Please refrain from posting further diatribes on this talk page, as they will be deleted. Good faith only goes so far, and the guideline clearly states this.
Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A further discussion by Wikipedians is added concerning ZOE and her actions within Wikipedia generally.
User:Zoe - Complaint over administrators recent actions
Firstly, perhaps this may be useful.
I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.
I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.
I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.
Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry
I first ran in to User:Zoe over a discussion regarding a delete (that we both favoured). Her curt reply of no personal attacks (when there had been no attack, or at the very best the attack was aimed at me anyway) led to the comment "I have been here a lot longer than you". See here. Hardly following don't bite the newcomer.. She then cropped up in this war, where she actually removed user page content without discussing with the user. In addition very recent apologies due to her mistakes include this and this. These were as a result of her hasty actions. Further examples of her uncivility include this and also this.
I do not want a war, and have done my best to open a debate with Zoe, but to no avail. Her last comment to me was the curt "This conversation is at an end". She has not bothered to reply to my subsequent messages.
In short I feel this administrator is overstepping from being bold to a state of agression. She never seems to assume good faith but will revert first and then baack track later. These actions make her a poor administrator in my opinion. I do not expect her to have her admin "status" revoked, but would ask she calms down and takes a more relaxed attitude. Her brutal reverts and comments that come very close to personal attacks can only damage this project, by putting off potential editors. I would invite a discussion on how others feel about her actions, or indeed wether I am just being over touchy about her actions. Pedro1999a | Talk 09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like she tried to communicate with you but you decided to not listen. You then decided to simply cross out her comments to you. My guess is that she said she had been around a lot longer than you as a manner in which to demonstrate that maybe she knows what she is talking about. I don't see any personal attacks.--MONGO 10:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply - please see the edit history. I struck her comments out long after the conversation. I assume that as I have only been editing for 8 months you feel I don't know what I'm talking about. Thank you for your comments.Pedro1999a | Talk 10:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think she explained herself and tried to end the conversaation since there was nothing more to discuss on the matter. When you start out a thread as here with quotes that indicate a possible objective you may be leaning towards, this looks more like a witch hunt than anything else. I have no doubt your contributions are generally all excellent, so I encourage you to resume those efforts.--MONGO 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments. I do not feel she explained herself. Her first post directed me to WP:NPA and her second was the "I've been here a lot longer than you". Her third, after I had stated I agreed with her was the curt "This conversation is at an end". There is no witch hunt, but I re-iterate that these actions are blunt and will deter editors. Pedro1999a | Talk 10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Zoe is very strong-willed, but she's also a very good admin. Always has been. Before jumping to ANI, try to work with users you disagree with. This page is not designed to be a first resort. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply - please see her user page and the three attempts I have made to open a dialogue that have been ignored. This is not a first resort. Thank you for your comments Pedro1999a | Talk 10:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh WOWOW! Zoe is a she? I, obviously didn't know that, or I would have tried to be polite with her XD. In any case, this is not Wikipedia's complaint department. You might want to use dispute resolution as a means. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was an assumption of gender. I don't need dispute resolution as I have no dispute regarding edits. I am not a major contributor, prefering to vandal fight instead. I just feel that this particular admin oversteps the mark and can make newbies feel uncomfortable. As I said initially maybe I am being too touchy. Nevertheless I do feel I have tried to open a dialogue to no avail and that other members of the community have the righ to discuss, civiliy, this admins edits and more importantly others perception of the actions taken. thank you for your comments. Pedro1999a | Talk 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As per below and your comment "this is not the complaint department" can someone (not me!) remove the "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." at the top of the page then. Ta!Pedro1999a | Talk 11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I see from her userpage that you did try to contact her multiple times, and she did not reply to your messages. You even told her yesterday that you would take it here if she did not reply. So I do think you tried to discuss, per Wikipedia policy, before coming here.Jeffpw 10:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply - Thank you Jeffpw. For transparancy other community members may note that myself and this user have discussed this post on my user page prior to me bringing it here.Pedro1999a | Talk 10:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I am still trying unsuccessfully to work out what the serious business is. This is over, right? Sorry, but we really don't need a report on the end of every single minor spat that takes place around here: ANI is clogged up enough as it is. While it would seem to me that Zoe has not been wilfully offensive, the complaining user is being wilfully offended, which is probably worse. But what incident are we meant to be discussing? There doesn't seem to be one. If you really think Zoe is an outstanding danger to Wikipedia then WP:RFC is just down the hall, second to the left. But why is this on ANI? Moreschi Deletion! 10:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Because everything ends up on ANI. Offended? Run to teacher. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Right at the top of this page it says "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." There is no specific incident, but this page states that I can make my informal complaint here. If I am just being too touchy please feel free to archive this away. I personally would like Zoe to review this however, and consider some restraint in the future. Pedro1999a | Talk 10:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a look, see what I can see. Don't get your hopes up. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
No complaints about Zoe's behaviour. However, I did notice this. Opinions may differ, but in my book, that's a PA on your part. Sorry. Ben Aveling 11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was unacceptable by me and done in the heat of the moment, hence it's subsequent removal. My apologies to the community on that. Pedro1999a | Talk 11:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact, various people seem to have approached this with a staggering lack of tact. Suggesting that someone either take a prolonged wikibreak or give up their bit is always going to escalate the situation and is never going to help, no matter how right you are, which you aren't. Quotes like "the lunatic who runs the asylum" are not really going to help either, for obvious reasons. Moreover, continuing posts on talk page when it would seem to me like the matter is dead and buried smells to me like harassment in minor form. Moreschi Deletion! 10:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. You will note from the edit history I did not post the "Lunatic who runs the assylum" header, and would respectfully sugest you check this fact. I did however make the other comments. As I am trying to point out, although I am offended I feel the more important issue is the offence taken by oher editors who may well contribute more usefully than me. I did not realise that my continuing posts in reponse was Harrasment. I thought it was civility.Pedro1999a | Talk 10:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
(Argh, Pedro... If you're going to go to the trouble of bolding and colouring "to touchy" each time can you maybe also go to the trouble of spelling it right? Ta/wangi 10:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
Guess that's why I vandal fight and don't write articles !! Thanks !!Pedro1999a | Talk 10:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, looks like consensus is too touchy. (extra o!). As this is the opinion of those interested enough to discuss my post then I will have to be happy with it. I'll just toddle back to Recent Changes and wish everyone happy editing. But as per above lets remove the "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." line at the top, as most contributors here felt this was the wrong place to bring up just that. Happy editing to all. Pedro1999a | Talk 11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that Zoe did something wrong here. That's why people are directing you elsewhere - the idea of making an "open informal complaint" about an admin implies that the admin in question did something worthy attention on this board. Being curt doesn't cut it, at least not to me. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. The thrust of my argument was with regards to the initial snub at being a newbie (despite 800+ edits) and the action Zoe was involved in with regard to removing content from another users page without asking (where in the debate she was generally condemed - a debate I was not inolved in initially). After that further investigation highlighted a higher than one would expect proportion of instances were her reversions have caused deep upset, and were subsequently often undone. Althought I agree that "Being curt doesn't cut it" at all times, and that admins are busy people often with little time to supply fuller posts, my thrust here has been some remarkably fast deletions / removals that Zoe has then climed down on. A measured approach with more checking before arbitry deletion / removal saves everyone time in the end and makes Wikipedia a better place for people to work. Over excessive use of admin powers will make new, potentially excellent, editors either give up or go down the Cabal thought process.Pedro1999a | Talk 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
NB - As per my comments above, I have no issue that the community has discussed this post and found it wanting. Whilst I do not withdraw any of my comments, they have been judged as in the wrong, and I am happy to accede to the consensus of those that have placed their views.Pedro1999a | Talk 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to those who supported me. I would like to point out that it has been pointed out to me that the deletions that I made of the photographs mentioned in the complaint above appear to have been valid all along. I am still pursuing this problem. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears that one of the unpleasant sides of being an admin is having to defend yourself sometimes for the actions that you take. I, for one, appreciate the good work that you do. Cla68 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. That says it all. Really, really. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, whilst I note with respect that it says up top this is not the complaints department, right next to this the page has a line saying you can open an informal complaint about an admin here. Please do not blame me for a badly worded page that led me to believe this was the correct place to bring my informal complaint. I have maintained from day one here that I did not want a war but wanted to highlight some actions by someone who it would appear is otherwise held in the highest regard (and rightly so). If anyone would care to look at this then I think my informal complaint was fully justified. Selective comments (none from user Jeffpw for balance) include (with no wiki markup):
Did you ask Jeffpw to remove it before removing it yourself? Syrthiss
Well, no I didn't, and that was a failing on my part. Zoe
No violation of WP:USER is obvious here. In any event by convention editor's userpages should not be edited unilaterally and the correct thing for Zoe to do was surely to raise her concerns on Jeffpw's talkpage. To do otherwise is extremely heavy handed and disrespectful to an established contributor. WJBscribe
I think Zoe behaved incredibly badly in not simply explaining her concern first and asking Jeff to modify it (not to mention using administrative rollback on non-vandalism and all that jazz). To my knowledge, Jeff is a solid editor and that courtesy should have been given (as outlined in WP:USER). —bbatsell
OK, you're correct. She shouldn't have done that.Patstuart
We've already agreed the removal was done badly.Patstuart
I have tried not to edit these out of context. There was consensus agreement that she made an error of judgment, in particular with regard to WP:CIVIL. This was coupled with my discussions with her previously. This is why I came here, just to say that I felt there was over zealous use of powers which may deter users.
I now accept this is the opinion of few (very few!), not many, and therefore consider this debate to be at an end.
As I have stated above I respect the collective decision of the community on this, and thank all editors for their time, however please do not criticise me for bringing an informal complaint to a page that says I can do just that. I have started a debate on the talk page as to whether this should be re-worded.
Best Regards to all, and happy editing. Pedro1999a | Talk 08:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC
And yet further extracts on Wikipedia concerning the former Wikipedian called ‘ZOE’ (note that Jimbo is Jimmy Wales the Owner of the whole of the Wikipedia and Wikimedia organization)
Zoe
1. Jimbo's words were entirely warranted. This was not even the sort of issue that admins or editors should have been dealing with on their own. They should have immediately alerted the WP lawyer or Jimbo concerning it, and left it to them to handle. There is a time to recognize and work through authority and this was one of them. As it was handled before Jimbo stepped in, it resembled the dynamics of a lynch-mob. That is shameful. Very shameful. CyberAnth 00:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2. She was presumably acting in good faith, but her response was so far over the top that it disappeared into the distance never to be seen or heard from again. I did not get a chance to read the email exchange (and it now seems to have been deleted) but, if accurately quoted, accusing a university lecturer who sets a class assignment in good-faith of committing a crime (apparently vandalising Wikipedia is a "federal offence", no less) is so wacko as to be unbelievable. This was a really shameful episode for Wikipedia- Jimbo, your rebuke was harsh, but entirely appropriate, given the bother that could have resulted from this. The lack of perspective shown by Zoe and many of the other correspondents in the discussion was mind-blowing. By the same token, everyone was I'm sure acting as they thought best, hopefully Mr. Pierce will not take any further action, and the matter is closed. Bottom line- Well done. Badgerpatrol 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Jimbo's comment was rather measured, given the circumstances. Using Wikimedia resources to attempt to drum up a posse to harass a man's name and avocation by threats of legal and media action is without question wildly inappropriate. Unlike Zoe, Jimbo did not make any threats about what will happen if an apology is not forthcoming. Zoe is perfectly free to render an apology or not. Zoe is also free to continue to assert that Jimbo condones vandalism (or not). Tim Shuba 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Zoe, I am going to remind you that everyone makes mistakes. I am going to suggest that the wikipedia will be a more civil, more collegial community if wikipedia community members all do their best to be open-minded when considering the possibility they made mistakes, and if we all do our best to openly acknowledge we have recognized we made a mistake. It builds trust, and makes it easier for our correspondents to assume good faith when we are obviously showing good faith.
From my perspective, your interactions with me have been marked by a lack of any sign that you were willing, or able to engage in civil dialogue, or consider the possibility that you may have made a mistake.
In my opinion, those entrusted with administrator privileges should not see this as freeing them from the obligations to try their best to be civil, and assume good faith. Rather, I think administrators should do their best to present an example of civility to others.
In my opinion if an administrator does not feel they have the time, or energy, or some other necessary resource, to be civil to those who have civil questions, about their exercise of authority, then they should take a tea break, or a wikibreak, and allow another administrator, who does have the resources to exercise their authority in a civil manner, to take care of whatever problem they have come across.
My comments may upset some of your friends. But I've done my best to be civil here. If you are planning to take a wikibreak I think this is the best time to encourage you to reconsider how much effort you devote to civility.
Candidly — Geo Swan 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Year old message - Hello, it seems I just received a message from you. I think it was delivered to my IP, which is dynamic. The message said that I would be blocked from editing Wikipedia if I vandalized another page. As much as I agree very strongly on a policy of control and moderation, and I have a deep respect for those who employ their time and efforts for a work of such magnitude, I have to state that, as of my knowledge, I have never vandalized any pages, actually -- through my accounts on the Italian and Esperanto version of wikipedia -- I have started and/or improved pages; one of the pages I have started has reached a Star award. Unfortunately I do not have any control over what other users do when they connect to the internet through this address. I hope that by an eventual ban of the address itself I would still be allowed to modify and revise pages when logged with an username. In conclusion I hope I haven't bothered anyone with these lines. I felt like stating in a polite and open way what I was thinking. Feel free to delete them. My user name on IT and EO wikipedia is Mnl; my ip-address (as of now) is 82.48.225.175. Thank you for your attention.
That was a year old warning - I've said more about it here. NoSeptember 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Communications between the Wikipedia Editor ‘ZOE’ and Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation concerning a Professor Tim Pierce
6.1 From ‘ZOE’ - I sent an email to the Northern Illinois University Public Affairs people concerning Professor Tim Pierce's assigning Wikipedia vandalism to his students, and did not receive a response to that one, nor to the subsequent one. When I sent a third, indicating that I would be contacting the press if they did not get back to me by the end of day Friday, Melanie Magara, Assistant Vice President for Public Affairs, finally contacted me, and indicated that I should contact the Ethics people in their legal department. That is my next move. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
6.2 From Jimmy Wales - '''Note from Jimbo:''' Wow, this is just wildly inappropriate. I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then. I think Zoe's pursuit of this in this way is wildly inappropriate and should cease immediately, and that she should apologize to him for it. I very much do not approve of this kind of random hostility from Wikipedia editors.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
7. Full overview of Wikipedia Editor ‘ZOE’ s actions concerning Professor Tim Pearce.
The following is the text of all communication I have had with Tim Pierce of Northern Illinois University and other offices at the University:
[edit]
January 20
Z:Have you really issued a class assignment to have your students vandalize Wikipedia? - [1]
Zoe Comnena, Wikipedia system administrator
P:Zoe,
They needed to learn a lesson about how easy it is to find information and how open source information is not the best way to go. This was after I was getting a lot of Wikipedia cites last semester where students were citing really dubious information from there. One way for them to realize that using sources, such as Wikipedia, is to get them to see how simple it is to change the information that is there.
[edit]
January 21
Z:I think I will forward this information to the president of the university. He or she should know that the faculty of your university advocate public vandalism.
P:It's not that I'm advocating vandalism as I had them print the original page so that, even if it wasn't caught, I could go back and recreate the correct page. The bigger issue, though, is that anybody can do this and have information that is online on your servers until who knows when until the page is discovered and corrected.
Z:And you didn't think that you could have made the point more easily by just making a valid edit to an article and explaining to them that anybody could have made the same edit and put invalid information in? We now, all of a sudden, have a large amount of vandalism from NIU IP addresses, which we as sysops have to deal with, since you apparently have not done so.
P:I do understand that problem and in the past I would say, "please don't use Wikipedia. As much as I like personally like Wikipedia, it is not an academic source and I wouldn't use it as an academic site." Guess what happens? I end up with people using Wikipeida over and over again and I realize that a lot of this comes from high school teachers who really didn't think through the advice that they were giving their students. So, I figured (perhaps a bit too hastily) that giving them something controlled, which I know from looking at the IP logs for myself, there is a backup page available that can be popped in that if they made an obvious change, just in the off chance that it wasn't corrected, they could see for themselves how long it would take before someone would fix it. The point that I want them to walk away with is that you can use Wikipedia if you need to verify something that you think you know to be true but I'd be really cautious of laying my credibility on the line here. The second part of the discussion that I was planning on having with them, regardless, is the ethicality of what they did. In other words, is it really okay to change things or to put information out there that is false knowing that other people may be relying on your information. Unfortunately, most students learn these lessons by doing and my guess is that they have learned a lot about the power of information and, in some cases, the power of disinformation.
The reality is that this is the downside of the wiki environment that even Wikipedia's president has admitted last year is really a problem. There has to be some middle ground, right? I think that Wikipedia can do a lot of good if the model was thought through a lot better than it did. And I think that there has been some good that has come out of it. I know, from reading, that there are a lot of people who go out and delibertly deface Wikipedia pages and because of the randomness of the IP addresses, it's much harder for you or other Sysops to catch and try to keep on top of it. However, if people rethink through the model of how open the open source really ought to be, perhaps Wikipedia won't cause people to shiver when it's being cited in college classrooms. In that sense, it's not just me. Quite a few of my colleagues had a Wikipedia venting session at the beginning of the school year.
So, in the sense that I've caused a lot of work on people's part in what's going on, I'm sorry for that. That really wasn't my intent.
Z:So if you feel that there is something wrong in a newspaper article or in an Encyclopaedia Brittanica article, do you advocate destroying the page it's on and stealing all of the newspapers out of the vendor's box?
P:Obviously no and the analogy is different. Of course, newspapers can be wrong in that something can be misstated but there's an editor that is going to go through and stand behind and issue corrections if need be. A print encyclopedia is very different in that Britannica is going to find an "expert" to write the encyclopedia entry. Can that entry have a bias? Sure. Would I put a lot of stock in that type of source. Not really--I would expect people to dig deeper than that.
[edit]
Correspondence with the Office of Public Affairs
I forwarded the first conversation I had had with Mr. Pierce to the office of public affairs, with an explanation at the head of it. I also indicated that I had had further communications from Mr. Pierce, which I could forward to them if they were interested. After having been ignored twice, I sent this for the third time, which got a reply:
This is the third time I have attempted to communicate with you or someone in your office. If you do not reply by close of business Friday, January 25, I will be forced to go to the press.
It recently came to our attention that one of NIU's professors, Tim Pierce, made an assignment to the students in one of his classes to vandalize Wikipedia, the online Encyclopedia. I have been in contact with Professor Pierce and can forward our correspondence to you if you wish. He admits to having made the assignment, and believes that his actions were correct.
I don't think we need to discuss the illegalities of defacing a website. Such actions are a federal offense. But we do need to discuss the ethics of such an assignment, and the failure of Professor Pierce to regret his actions or to pledge not to do so in the future.
I would like an official comment from the University on this subject. I have already sent one email to Public Affairs on the subject, and it has been ignored. Please respond to me, or I may find it necessary to take this information to the press, which is always eager to write articles about Wikipedia defacement.
Zoe Comnena, Wikipedia administrator
I finally got a reply, as follows:
Zoe, I am in receipt of your emails on this topic. Given their content, it seems more appropriate for you to address your concerns to the Office of University Legal Services. Within that office, it is most likely that the issues you raise would be addressed by the university's Ethics Officer. You may wish to forward your complaints to that office at the following email address: xxxxxx@niu.edu (email address redacted by Zoe)
[edit]
Correspondence with the Ethics Office
I then sent the same email to the Ethics Office at the email address advised, and am waiting for a reply.
And this is their response:
Here is the position of my office on this: You are probably aware that university teachers have considerable latitude under academic freedom flowing from the First Amendment to express their ideas and impart information to their students in the course of conducting academic courses. NIU would not censor its faculty in the pursuit of their legitimate teaching objectives if conducted in accordance with applicable laws.
You may ask your legal counsel to contact me if you feel your organization has experienced some form of illegal actions by NIU faculty, and I will be happy to make further inquiry and reply to your counsel. If your counsel can cite what laws have allegedly been violated, NIU will look into determining what is actually true. I have reason to understand there is a substantial difference of opinion on the facts you have represented in your message. Your counsel would probably inform you of a need to be cautious about accusing individuals and public academic institutions of illegal actions before there is clear proof that such is the case.
In the meantime, your organization should consider making its website content more secure by assuring it cannot be changed by outsiders if indeed that is a possibility and an interest you want to protect against, as you seem to say our faculty has possibly pointed out to students. It at least preliminarily seems disingenuous to claim 'vandalism' if it is so easily and foreseeably done. I am not hearing you say this site was 'hacked' into. It would be interesting to know how often this occurs.
Your veiled threat of 'going to the media' does not alter how this matter should be addressed on its merits. A one-time teaching demonstration certainly has evoked a strong response from you, and I am interested in knowing why -- given all the circumstances that would likely come out in a public discussion of it. Maybe it would be best to just let it drop.
At a slight tangent from the above: GOOGLE – Search
If you put the words Wikipedia and Unreliable into Google, there are 570,000 web hits.
Examples
1. Wikipedia Articles Deemed Unreliable
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims recently held that medical articles from Wikipedia, WebMD, and MedlinePlus are unreliable and ought not to have been considered… (Campbell v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., Fed. Cl., No. 02-554, reissued 2/14/06).
2. Criticism of Wikipedia – search.com
Criticism of Wikipedia has increased with its prominence. Critics include current and former contributors to Wikipedia, journalists, librarians, representatives of other encyclopedias, and subjects of articles. Notable criticisms include that its open nature makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable, that it exhibits systemic bias, and that the group dynamics of its community hinder its goals.
And finally the Reason why ‘Zoe’ left Wikipedia, or Zoe’s side of the story
Jimbo accused me of having a vendetta against Mr. Pierce. Such an attack is too much for me to endure. I have loved my time at Wikipedia, but I do not feel that I can continue here. Goodbye. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)