Difference between revisions of "Criticisms of HypertWiki"

From HypertWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(tircysp)
m (Reverted edits by DomchIrono (Talk); changed back to last version by Woozle)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Relevant dialogue with JERS==
Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.
===2006-07-24 JERS to Woozle===
==Issues==
PS I Googled [[tirCysP]] and got this. Why do you put this private stuff up on the web???
In the course of the discussions with that person, however, some interesting issues have come up:
* Are personal emails considered confidential by default?
* Are personal emails considered to be copyrighted (another means of requiring confidentiality)?
* If someone criticizes me in writing, does that have any effect on whatever presumed confidentiality may exist – in other words, must I still keep those criticisms ''of me'' confidential? Do I not have some extra license towards posting confidential writing when that writing is criticism of myself? If I value that criticism, then I might want to keep it confidential in order to avoid a chilling effect – but if I am finding the criticism baffling, then does it not seem somehow reasonable to post it publicly? Possible benefits:
*# stop the flow of baffling criticism
*# maybe someone else will understand the criticism and explain it to me
*# perhaps someone will side with me, and give me better arguments to use against said criticism
*: The worst-case scenario being that someone explains it to me and I realize that it was valid, ''and'' I have now alienated the person who sent it to me – but I never would have understood it if I hadn't posted it, so this still seems like a gain.
* If someone emailed me threats of physical harm, those emails would (as I understand it) be considered evidence, and therefore not confidential. Where is the boundary line between threats and criticism?
** Is it when the criticism becomes abusive?
** Is it when I reach the point where I no longer care about maintaining the other person's trust in me?
* Some people apparently regard "open letters" as inherently hostile. Do most people agree with this? If so, why?


http://wiki.hypertwins.org/index.php?title=User:Woozle_To-Do&printable=yes
I think part of the complication here may be because there are two different sets of rules involved: statutory rules (law) and social rules (etiquette).
===2006-07-24 Woozle to JERS===
I [[google:psycrit|googled for {{faint|[redacted]}}]] and got {{faint|[redacted]}}.com, followed by 2.5 pages (listed as 5
pages, but upon actually paging through them, there were only 3, with the
last one being very short) of unrelated stuff. Not sure where you got
wiki.hypertwins.org from in all that.


N.
Social rules (as I understand it) are governed by unwritten but semi-obvious contracts between people – such as "I will continue to trust you as long as you don't abuse that trust." If I post "confidential" writing, I may be violating that trust – but if I feel that the writer is being abusive to me, I don't really ''care'' too much if they trust me.
===2006-07-24 JERS to Woozle===
What I meant was: I wouldn't want anything but the public pages of PC
accessible to random googlers.  (And do you really want {{faint|[name redacted]}} -- who
seems to spend many hours on the internet -- trawling through your
personal info?)  D
===2006-07-24 Woozle to JERS===
> What I meant was: I wouldn't want anything but the public pages of PC
> accessible to random googlers.  


I'm not sure what you mean about this... PC has no non-public pages.
'''A tentative rule''': Anyone has the right to confront accusations ''in a public venue'', whether those accusations were made privately or publicly. The accused may choose to respect the accuser's privacy and post such accusations with anonymous attribution; if the accusations are abusive, though, it is not unreasonable for the accused to identify the accuser in order to provide a modicum of deterrence against further abuse. (This is a nicely balanced (even Solomonesque) solution because if the accusation is justified, the accusation is more likely to reflect badly on the accused than on the accuser.)


> (And do you really want {{faint|[name redacted]}} -- who
<center>''"Ultimately, everybody will find out everything."'' &ndash; saying at Google [http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/2007/01/01/transparency-is-inevitable/]
> seems to spend many hours on the internet -- trawling through your
> personal info?)  D


She already does trawl through it, from various reports I've had. I can't easily stop her while leaving the info available to the world at large, which is what's important. Besides, there isn't much I'd really consider terribly
''"Three things can not hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the Truth."'' &ndash; Siddhartha Gautama
personal on that site yet, and certainly not on a level with the former hidden site she somehow found a few years ago and immediately discussed with everyone except me.
</center>
 
==Related Links==
There was nothing on that site that I would have objected to her knowing about (in fact, I *thought* she already did know about the particular issues she chose to fuss about). I didn't even object to the people she told about it knowing about it, though the timing could certainly have been better.
* '''2006-12-29''' [http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/16345307.htm Some rethink posting of private info]
 
The problem arises when she uses the information to create a furor. If I make all the information public and easily accessible, then anything she "reveals" isn't new or privileged information which only she knows how to find. If I go the opposite direction and remove whatever information she has decided to make a fuss over, she has gained effective censorship control over my writing, which is probably what she wants -- to be able to stop me from discussing things that bother her, without having to confront those things on a rational level.
 
...not that it's ever clear which specific information she's bothered by; she seems mainly to want me to stop posting anything at all. If I were to take down the Hypertwins wiki, for example, her next target would be how awful and tacky vbz.net is, and so on. There's no point in trying to reach compromise when the other party won't enter the discussion.
 
N.
===2006-07-25 JERS responds===
I just got the URL I sent you from Google...As for the world at large, I'm not sure what to say.  If there are people you want to keep informed, why not send them a collective email?  If you just put everything on the web, God knows what the world will make of it!

Latest revision as of 23:56, 16 January 2009

Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.

Issues

In the course of the discussions with that person, however, some interesting issues have come up:

  • Are personal emails considered confidential by default?
  • Are personal emails considered to be copyrighted (another means of requiring confidentiality)?
  • If someone criticizes me in writing, does that have any effect on whatever presumed confidentiality may exist – in other words, must I still keep those criticisms of me confidential? Do I not have some extra license towards posting confidential writing when that writing is criticism of myself? If I value that criticism, then I might want to keep it confidential in order to avoid a chilling effect – but if I am finding the criticism baffling, then does it not seem somehow reasonable to post it publicly? Possible benefits:
    1. stop the flow of baffling criticism
    2. maybe someone else will understand the criticism and explain it to me
    3. perhaps someone will side with me, and give me better arguments to use against said criticism
    The worst-case scenario being that someone explains it to me and I realize that it was valid, and I have now alienated the person who sent it to me – but I never would have understood it if I hadn't posted it, so this still seems like a gain.
  • If someone emailed me threats of physical harm, those emails would (as I understand it) be considered evidence, and therefore not confidential. Where is the boundary line between threats and criticism?
    • Is it when the criticism becomes abusive?
    • Is it when I reach the point where I no longer care about maintaining the other person's trust in me?
  • Some people apparently regard "open letters" as inherently hostile. Do most people agree with this? If so, why?

I think part of the complication here may be because there are two different sets of rules involved: statutory rules (law) and social rules (etiquette).

Social rules (as I understand it) are governed by unwritten but semi-obvious contracts between people – such as "I will continue to trust you as long as you don't abuse that trust." If I post "confidential" writing, I may be violating that trust – but if I feel that the writer is being abusive to me, I don't really care too much if they trust me.

A tentative rule: Anyone has the right to confront accusations in a public venue, whether those accusations were made privately or publicly. The accused may choose to respect the accuser's privacy and post such accusations with anonymous attribution; if the accusations are abusive, though, it is not unreasonable for the accused to identify the accuser in order to provide a modicum of deterrence against further abuse. (This is a nicely balanced (even Solomonesque) solution because if the accusation is justified, the accusation is more likely to reflect badly on the accused than on the accuser.)

"Ultimately, everybody will find out everything." – saying at Google [1]

"Three things can not hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the Truth." – Siddhartha Gautama

Related Links