Talk-RobertLiota-Pre2010

encyclopedia
Hello Rob, your statement "Recently the principles of Hampedia as a free, open source encyclopedia have been endangered" is inaccurate. First, Hampedia is not an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). Hampedia has elements of an encyclopedia but the project itself is far from aiming at being an encyclopedia. Second, I believe its time you stop referring to recent events as "endangering Hampedia's principles" since clearly there was nothing being endangered. You should have come to our two meeting to get an accurate picture of what Hampedia is about and get to know the people who are involved with the project. Sadly you decided not to attend any of the meetings, and instead you continued going with this "endangering Hampedia's principles" story, which frankly is pure ignorance with a hint of paranoia. I recommend you spend some time learning a bit more about Hampedia as a project before referring to it as an encyclopedia and questioning how Hampedia has been managed.

I strongly advice you to consider running on a more constructive and informed platform for the board.

p.s. the Hampedia board, as anyone else on Hampedia, has no power to override any public discourse. The Hampedia board makes no decisions over what content is placed on Hampedia.

Again, please be informed and constructive. (Jaf05 19:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC))


 * RE: endangering Hampedia tenets:


 * This is an internet based wiki of Hampshire knowledge, and mediations should be able to be carried out in the same manner. Public outcry was more than visible on relevant talk pages, which were outright ignored by the Hampedia board in their deliberations. How can Hampedia begin to get off the ground as an online repository of cited, factual, information and knowledge if all that is online is ignored? I sent my complaint to you outlining what was wrong with the policies at hand by email as well, and from what has (not) happened - (a vote, to be carried out by the Hampedia Board of Trustees), it was completely ignored.


 * So, if you want to call me paranoid, go ahead, but please explain to me how covering up cited, factual information, then filibustering on a vote about the appropriate display of information is paranoid. I'm simply defending the freedom of knowledge and information on Hampedia.


 * Where am I not being constructive in my desire to change Hampedia for the better, and reduce content management by a board? I believe I am quite justified in my pursuits, as NPOV use of Hampedia is at current being breached, and cited, factual information is being effectively censored by the current board (I do not assume it was the board's intention).


 * See Talk:Sam Light for an example. (Rob 02:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Response

 * Hello Rob, below are some of my thoughts.I included the text from your response.

This is an internet based wiki of Hampshire knowledge, and mediations should be able to be carried out in the same manner.


 * Not necessarily. Mediating simple situations, yes; mediating situations that require a richer form of communication, no. Face-to-face communication tends to be a more effective way to have a discussion, specially when the aim is reducing miscommunication and misinformation in order to better resolve a situation. Again, your lack of knowledge regarding how Hampedia operates is evidence of how little you about the project, and thus it is not a surprise that your opinions regarding how Hampedia is managed are misinformed. Please come to the meeting, learn and get involved. Yes, Hampedia is a platform in cyberspace, but having a successful platform depends on individuals coming together to share and discuss our point of view in order to make better decisions.

Public outcry was more than visible on relevant talk pages, which were outright ignored by the Hampedia board in their deliberations.


 * How can you judge what happens at our meeting if you have never been present at any meeting? (this by the way goes way beyond the board since the majority of Hampedia's active members and decision makers don't even serve on the board. Again, come to our meetings and learn more about the practical purpose of the board -it is really not what you have expressed in your comments) What worries me about your attitude is that you seem to judge the management of Hamepdia without first engaging in understanding what Hampedia is about. A number of your comments in Light's talk page were simply wrong, period. Other comments you made were hurtful and demoralizing to active members of Hampedia who do understand that the project is about, and who invest their time and energy in the project. What I ask from you is to be more humble and willing to learn, rather than just judge.

How can Hampedia begin to get off the ground as an online repository of cited, factual, information and knowledge if all that is online is ignored?


 * Nothing was ignored; and please no not exaggerate, saying that “all that is online is ignored” is gross exaggeration and simply wrong. And by the way, Hampedia has already taken of the ground as an online repository of cited, factual, information and knowledge; However Hampedia is not an encyclopedia (although it has characteristics of one), and material that is not cited, and material that may not necessarily be factual is also welcome. Of course it is the responsibility of the user to make the finer distinction of when to cite and when not to cite. And it is the choice of the user to document fictional content on Hampedia.

I sent my complaint to you outlining what was wrong with the policies at hand by email as well, and from what has (not) happened - (a vote, to be carried out by the Hampedia Board of Trustees), it was completely ignored.


 * This point is actually false. Your email did not outlined any information related to the Hampedia policies. Your email only talked about privacy issues related to Light's page (I am including a copy of the email you sent me)


 * I don't believe there's any issue of privacy at stake in Sam Light's wiki-page:
 * 1.Sam Light is a public representative for COCA, and thus Hampshire Students' SAF.
 * 2.Sam Light's actions were deemed public by FiCom.
 * 3.All information added to the wiki-page was cited, and is fact.
 * Thank you for deliberating on this matter,
 * Robert Liota


 * And we did discussed the three points you mentioned in your email during our meeting. They were not ignored.

So, if you want to call me paranoid, go ahead, but please explain to me how covering up cited, factual information,


 * Again, nothing was or is being covered up. Nor is anyone questioning factual information. This is not what the discussion is about for the board, in any way. Our discussion has been about profile ownership.

then filibustering on a vote about the appropriate display of information is paranoid. I'm simply defending the freedom of knowledge and information on Hampedia.


 * You are not defending freedom; you think your are defending freedom, but in reality you are defending a position that is not even being discussion nor questioned. Hampedia will never limit the freedom of knowledge and information in any way, period. Again, your position is the result of your lack of understand about what Hampedia is about and how it is managed. Come to our meetings, learn more about the project, and contribute.

Where am I not being constructive in my desire to change Hampedia for the better, and reduce content management by a board?


 * Again, the board does not engage in content management, period. If you want to make Hampedia better begin by understanding what the project is about. Trying to make Hampedia better by “reduc[ing] content management by a board” is simply nonsensical because the board does not engage in content management. You are trying to improve something that does not exist. Instead, if you actually want to make Hampedia better at a structural level, start by coming to our meeting and learning about the project. We have a lot of challenges ahead to make Hampedia stronger!

I believe I am quite justified in my pursuits, as NPOV use of Hampedia is at current being breached, and cited, factual information is being effectively censored by the current board (I do not assume it was the board's intention).


 * First of all, the board made no decision on protecting Light's page, thus it is incorrect to state that the board effectively censored information. It was administrator User:Ihm08 who protected the page, with the summary "controversial problem is controversial; this can get unfrozen when hampedia board of trustees has dealt with this problem".


 * Please, do not defend rules on Hampedia for the sake of defending rules. Rules serve Hampedia's development, not the other way around. Sam Light's situation presents the opportunity to question whether our current rules are serving Hampedia's development -specially when it cames to profile pages. That is why we engage in dialogue, when ever we are confronted with situations that challenge our structures. You and everyone who is interested in participating in these dialogues is more than welcome to do so.


 * The only reason why Light's page was protected was that users continued to add information to his profile although he has already deleted such information (refer to the Hampedia guidelines for further details on page ownership). If we develop Hampedia further, users will have a better experience using the platform -this is what this situation is about.


 * You pursue is not justified because you are wrongfully analyzing the situation. You are basing your position on arguments that are wrong. Please learn more about Hampedia, and run for the board on a constructive platform not fictitious allegations. (Jaf05 23:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC))


 * You have an extremely warped view of intellectual, academic, and pure factual integrity.I'm not "defend(ing) rules on Hampedia for the sake of defending rules." - I'm standing by a rule that I think is so important that it should never be trumped by something as silly and frivolous as a profile page - a service that is already offered for free on Facebook, MySpace, and even stout.hampshire.edu! Let's work on something that doesn't exist already, why don't we.
 * This is your response? Very constructive! Try harder next time. :0) (Jaf05 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
 * And that's your response to the main issue at hand(NPOV)? From our argument, I have learned one thing, and that is that Hampedia was never intended to foster an environment of honesty: factual information can be swept under the rug arbitrarily. I simply want to change that. I understand that you built pitus on your own: this is your baby, I get that. So, if you feel that people should not be held accountable for their actions via Hampedia, fine. I see no reason why we should argue endlessly about a point we do not agree on, but believe is absolutely integral to the project. As you are the founder of Hampedia, I'll take this back and forth we've had as a good sign that even if I were elected to serve on the board, it would not be a productive appointment for either of us.

Rob, NPOV is not the issue here. You continue to interpret Hampedia as an encyclopedia (particularly Wikipedia, in which all pages are created equally -actually, even this point is changing on Wikipedia). Profile pages on Hampedia belong to their respective user (ex. Robert Liota belongs to you). Any other page on Hampedia does not belong to any party, and thus it must respect NPOV. If you choose to omit information about yourself on your profile page, it is your right and choice as a user on Hampedia to do so. This is why this situation is not about NPOV but about rights over profile pages. This is also why when users delete their pages we respect their choice, even if the information on the page is factual and/or they are a public figures. Samuel Light's case is an example of a user exercising his rights: he has the right to eliminate the information surrounding his abuse of the SAF or any other information from his profile page -this is his right. Of course, although Light's decision to eliminate this information from his profile is within his rights, he is employing his freedom in a dishonest fashion by not respecting NPOV, since all the information that was added to his profile page was factual and respected NPOV. Again, this was his choice -not Hampedia's. The dishonesty and “factual information [being] swept under the rug arbitrarily” in Light's profile is Light's own choice and responsibility and not Hampedia's choice or responsibility. Since Light's decision was not to respect NPOV in his profile page, you or anyone has the right address Light's actions and to document Light's actions in what ever way you deem necessary so that NPOV is ultimately respected. Have you gotten in contact with Light? Do you know why he decided to take the information out of his profile? Have you asked him why he decided not to respect NPOV in his profile? It is not fair for you to make Hampedia responsible for Light's actions on Hampedia. Nor is it correct to question Hampedia's integrity based on Light's actions. Hampedia is not responsible for Light's actions -he is. Of course people should be held accountable for their actions via Hampedia. Hampedia is a very effective place to do so. However is not correct to question Hampedia's integrity based on an individual's actions. Again, how Light exercised his rights on his profile is not a reflection of Hampedia's views. I strongly supported of NPOV on Hampedia, but I also support the rights granted to users by the Hampedia policies. I strongly encourage you run for the board and get involved with Hampedia. I am actually graduating in two weeks, and will not run for the board. Hampedia is an experiment that will continue to evolve, and the project need individuals like you to continue growing. I believe that your perspectives will bring a lot to the development of the board and Hampedia as a platform.