Talk:A Rape in Cyberspace
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-16. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I've heard from fairly reputable sources (but only in person) that large parts of Dibbell's story were, while not outright lies, not precisely what happened either. Specifically, he talks about how exu claims to have been in tears during the event. I've heard this wasn't true, and was emblematic of Dibbell's general over-dramatizing of the events. Does anyone have any sources to back that up? I haven't seen anything on the net, and was hoping to find some of that here, but didn't.
An internet rape!?!? Are you kidding me. Give me a break
Contents |
[edit] uh
This seems like a really strange thing to devote an entire article to. The last section is definitely not NPOV, and was pretty clearly written by a member of that community.
[edit] INDEED
Good thing to dedicate an entire article to. Welcome to the useless, abandoned alleyways of Wikipedia.
[edit] Summary section "in-universe"
The summary section blurs the lines between real events and things that occured within a computer program. This is easy to do, of course, because the original article itself is all about that blurring. Nevertheless, we must remain precise on Wikipedia. The founder should be referred to primarily by his name; the fact that he calls himself the Archiwizard Haakon isn't really relevant. The word "cyberrape" should never appear outside quotes; the article may call it that, but it's neither NPOV nor factually accurate to refer to it as analogous to a rape without making it clear whose term it is. Stuff like that. -- SCZenz 23:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the section in an attempt to clarify the difference between the real-world users and their online screennames/avatars. I think it's improved enough to remove the in-universe tag, but I'm still not clear myself on a few points - whether, for instance, messages posted on the mailing-list are posted by the users as their real-world selves or as their avatars. I suspect the former. --Smalljim 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I suspect the latter -- it's described as an "in-MOO mailing list", so it is probably the equivalent of getting personal messages on a typical forum. You log into your "screen name" (I think most MOOers would consider that an AOLism -- the terminology used seems to be variously "player" or "character"), and from there you have access to the full suite of MOO commands including the mail system. In general, though, I think your edits were helpful in making those distinctions to people who are thoroughly unfamiliar with virtual experience (as surprising as their existence may be to others). --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, Dan. As you could tell, I'm no expert on MOOs - in fact I learned some interesting stuff while editing the article. Hope someone else can clean it up further. --Smalljim 10:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I suspect the latter -- it's described as an "in-MOO mailing list", so it is probably the equivalent of getting personal messages on a typical forum. You log into your "screen name" (I think most MOOers would consider that an AOLism -- the terminology used seems to be variously "player" or "character"), and from there you have access to the full suite of MOO commands including the mail system. In general, though, I think your edits were helpful in making those distinctions to people who are thoroughly unfamiliar with virtual experience (as surprising as their existence may be to others). --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It's definitely the latter; all in-MOO mailing lists, such as the
*social-issueslist referenced in the article, used in-game names ("player" names) for attribution. At the time of the events covered by the Village Voice article, there was little or no association between MOO player names and real-world names. Accounts are now associated with an email address (a regular Internet email address, that is), but I'm not sure that was even true at the time. There is no extensive user registration system for LambdaMOO. It would have been difficult to associate the perpetrator or victims with their real-world identities. - On a related note, almost all of the player names referenced in the Village Voice article are pseudonyms, except that of Haakon. I think it's worth mentioning that Pavel Curtis referred to himself as "Haakon" in the game, since the Village Voice article refers to him as Haakon. The other aliases are thinly-veiled, and those who were part of the community at that time were able to identify the pseudonyms chosen for themselves and others. The fact that they were pseudonyms may be worth a brief mention in the article, since some player pseudonyms are explicitly mentioned. I'm not going to modify the article, as I don't have sources that can be cited. I was present during some of the events and subsequent debate on corrective action, and I'm mentioned by pseudonym in the article, but I don't think that qualifies for citation. James A. Stewart (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's definitely the latter; all in-MOO mailing lists, such as the
-
[edit] Relevance
As there seems to be some debate (vis above) about the relevance of this article, it should be noted that it's regularly cited 15 years after the original publication, and used as course material in current university sociology courses. The cited Lessig influence alone is evidence of relevance. This is my clearly POV opinion, but I felt like weighing in. If there's any serious debate about relevance or a desire to remove the article entirely, I'd be happy to track down current sources to cite in defense of its retention. James A. Stewart (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
