Fwd: to Peter, rocwiki

[Peter Boulay]

Thought you should all see this.....I invited him to the rocwiki group and to the 3/30 meeting

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <best...@rochester.rr.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Subject: to Peter, rocwiki
To: blu...@gmail.com


Peter, from what I can find around here it seems you are somewhat in charge of the web site rocwiki. I think it's a great site to let people say how they really feel about whatever it is about this city. However. I don't not think it is ok to post rantings of discruntle ex-employees who are deliberately trying to tarnish or ruin a business.  Please remove the rant from "missgia" about Michelina's Italian Eatery.
Thank you for understanding,
Jay Palermo, Owner & Chef

[Peter Boulay]

Hi all....I think Missgia's comment is worth removing....or at least tagging as trolling.

It strikes me as just plain rude

[Joanna Licata]

Reading MisGia's personal page, it seems she comes into conflict a lot.  However, some of her points still may be valid despite the harsh way that they were presented.  Perhaps saying "watch out for the rats" is her way of saying there are critters in the kitchen at night, or something like that.  She's a long standing member, so I think to mark her posts with the troll tag designed for newly registered accounts is inappropriate.  Or we could change the wording on the troll tag to incorporate all users, not just newly registered ones.

[Rottenchester]

I agree with Joanna that the troll tag isn't appropriate -- MissGia
isn't a recently registered member of the wiki. Also, a one-line
statement is not a "rant".

If you allow comments as we do, sometimes people are going to make
cryptic, negative comments. Are we going to develop a new
"Unpleasant Opinion" flag? If so, what should it say: "This person
has expressed an opinion that a lot of people find unpleasant. If
that bothers you, please find a fainting couch or grab your smelling
salts."

I agree that unpleasant opinions may be unfair, they may be biased,
and they might come from people who for some reason or other don't
like the restaurant. Isn't that part of the restaurant business?

[Peter Boulay]

I don't see it as cryptic. MissGia, unfortunately seems to have a bad rep with her former employers and apparently likes to go after them.

If we want to get more involvement from business owners (as we've discussed before) we need to also show that we support them in some way.  I think little comments like hers are totally unconstructive and are purely trollish.  I inquired with a friend at the Heath Dept-there's been no complaints about Michelina's so I say delete it and tel her to bring it to the health dept if she has a concern over rodents

[Rottenchester]

Then we better delete MarcVera's comment on that page, too. "WORST
service in all of Rochester" -- that can't be, there must be worse
service somewhere. And SteveVogt said the place was "mediocre" -- not
constructive.

How far are we going to go to appease restaurant owners in return for
some vague promises of support?

Restaurant owners, who might be wonderful people who work hard, just
have a different set of goals than RocWiki. They want good publicity.
We want to let contributors say what they want in the comments. If
we start flagging and deleting comments by established contributors
because someone doesn't like them, that's going to have a chilling
effect on commenters.

[DaveMahon]

That's true. We cannot require exclusively positive comments. But just
as overly-shining comments should be pointed out for scrutiny, so
should unsupported negative comments. Marc Vera supports his
assessments with descriptions of his experience. This comment from
MissGia is cryptic. If there have been health code violations, she
should mention the date and the exact charge. If the rats are
metaphorical and describe underhanded co-workers/management, she
should mention that.

Such vague comments - regardless of whether they are positive or
negative - deserve to be flagged for additional scrutiny by visitors
who may not be aware of their history. Her comment should not be
deleted, because it does not violate any of RocWiki's policies,
however.

The Troll pagelet is at fault here, in my opinion. It arbitrarily
limits itself to new users, when it should probably be something more
generic, like "One or more comments on this page have been identified
by the RocWiki community as being suspicious. Discussion of why these
comments have been identified can be found on our Google Group. Read
the marked comments in the context of the contributor's other posts."

On Mar 18, 10:19 am, Rottenchester <rottenches...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then we better delete MarcVera's comment on that page, too.  "WORST
> service in all of Rochester" -- that can't be, there must be worse
> service somewhere.  And SteveVogt said the place was "mediocre" -- not
> constructive.
>
> How far are we going to go to appease restaurant owners in return for
> some vague promises of support?
>
> Restaurant owners, who might be wonderful people who work hard, just
> have a different set of goals than RocWiki.  They want good publicity.
>  We want to let contributors say what they want in the comments.  If
> we start flagging and deleting comments by established contributors
> because someone doesn't like them, that's going to have a chilling
> effect on commenters.
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Peter Boulay <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't see it as cryptic. MissGia, unfortunately seems to have a bad rep
> > with her former employers and apparently likes to go after them.
>
> > If we want to get more involvement from business owners (as we've discussed
> > before) we need to also show that we support them in some way.  I think
> > little comments like hers are totally unconstructive and are purely
> > trollish.  I inquired with a friend at the Heath Dept-there's been no
> > complaints about Michelina's so I say delete it and tel her to bring it to
> > the health dept if she has a concern over rodents
>

> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Rottenchester <rottenches...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
> > > I agree with Joanna that the troll tag isn't appropriate -- MissGia
> > > isn't a recently registered member of the wiki.  Also, a one-line
> > > statement is not a "rant".
>
> > > If you allow comments as we do, sometimes people are going to make
> > > cryptic, negative comments.   Are we going to develop a new
> > > "Unpleasant Opinion" flag?   If so, what should it say: "This person
> > > has expressed an opinion that a lot of people find unpleasant.  If
> > > that bothers you, please find a fainting couch or grab your smelling
> > > salts."
>
> > > I agree that unpleasant opinions may be unfair, they may be biased,
> > > and they might come from people who for some reason or other don't
> > > like the restaurant.   Isn't that part of the restaurant business?
>

> > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Joanna Licata <joanna.lic...@gmail.com>

[Peter Boulay]

Here's another email from him he asked me to forward....he seems to be unable to join the group and will not be able to attend the meeting due to the fact he's in his restaurant cooking at that time..we need to give him some firm answer as to why we're not deleting it.

 

Peter, from what I can find around here it seems you are somewhat in charge of the web site rocwiki. I think it's a great site to let people say how they really feel about whatever it is about this city. And dont mind people saying how they feel in fact i encourage it.
However. It is not  ok to post rantings of discruntle ex-employees who are deliberately trying to tarnish or ruin a business. Its very hard to keep a buisnees a float these days word of mouth is the best and worst way of advertising. Please remove the rant from "missgia" about Michelina's Italian Eatery. I know who this person is "Chris Giancurso"  is and she was fired for various reasons.Once again pleast remove her post.

Thank you for understanding,
Jay Palermo, Owner & Chef


 

[Peter Boulay]

I would say let's change the NPOV text to say it could include people who have an "ax to grind" then.... 

[Rottenchester]

How about this: The owners of the restaurant join RocWiki and put in
a comment. They say that there are no rats in their restaurant, that
the last three health inspections were A+. If they want to say
something about MissGia, then they say it.

[Andrea Cogliati]

Just my 2 cents on the topic: I don't think it's a good idea to react
to business owners' concerns regarding comments. If we start doing it
for one, we'll just start a chain reaction and every business owner
could ask to delete comments they don't like, adding more burden for
the admins. Besides, that would set a dangerous precedent allowing
business owners to claim that they are now forced to patrol RocWiki,
otherwise bad comments will proliferate and so on. If we believe in
our policy, the best thing to do is to act proactively according to
it and defend it in front of users and third parties (like business
owners).

That said, users' comments might be (which I don't know for sure,
sorry to repeat myself) a potential legal liability for the site and
we should clarify this point as soon as possible. We've seen a few
barking dogs but no biting ones, yet (figuratively speaking): but who
knows?

Andrea

[Andrea Cogliati]

On the specific issue, MissGia is (was?) a long standing member: why
don't we simply ask her to clarify or reword her comment?

Andrea

[Peter Boulay]

I'd agree with this Andrea...I'll try to contact her

[Joanna Licata]

Pete may be unable to keep NPOV because he personally knows the owners, as he says in his comment on the page.  Nothing against you, Peter.  I think maybe people who are removed from the situation at hand are best to make an impartial judgment regarding it.

I agree we should ask MissGia to clarify her comment, however, if she chooses not to, it should stay.

In general, if a restaurant owner wishes to address the claims, he/she may.  However, we should not delete comments intended to flame.  They show that the restaurant's practices create drama.  We should delete in cases of vandalism, or threats of intention to harm a specific person or property, in which case we notify specific persons.  He/she/they can, in turn, alert authorities if the need is felt.

[EastSideStephen]

I don't think we really need to worry about setting precedents. Since
the wiki is (in theory) self-correcting, we are free to evaluate these
on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, Miss Gia is a fired employee (allegedly) which certainly
gives her a reason to make a false claim.

Also, regardless of whose side you took in her previous wiki
arguments, I think we can all agree that she has shown herself to be
contentious. You can see her comments regarding Flesh For Fantasy
tattoo if you would like to investigate her history of making serious
and unseemly allegations about businesses with which she has a
problem. I am not saying this accusation is untrue.....but it is
certainly outrageous.

So, in this case we have a vague allegation by an aggrieved party with
a history of making outrageous allegations.

That's a whole universe apart from someone saying "I didn't like my
meal, and here's why".

[Peter Boulay]

Correction---Joanna---I do NOT know the owner of Michelina's..he emailed me of his own volition

[DaveMahon]

To return the original request, I think a few points need to be made
clear to the owner (not necessarily in this order):

1. No individual or group of individuals is specifically in charge,
although Pete (and the rest of the Admin group) are slightly more
equal, in that we have the ability to prevent future posting.
2. Nobody is empowered to remove posts, however, unless they can be
demonstrated (not necessarily proven) to be in violation of law or
community standards. RocWiki standards are posted on the Etiquette
page.
3. We have flagged MissGia's comment to indicate that there are
questions about its merit among the community. (and remember that
unless we have proof of his claim of identity, we can only use the
RocWiki handle to identify the contributor in correspondence)
4. Questioning the merit of a comment indicates that there may be a
community standard violation, but does not, in and of itself,
demonstrate such a violation.
5. Pete is attempting to contact the poster in question to ask them to
clarify, rephrase or redact their comment.
6. We appreciate his concerns and encourage him to participate in the
dialogue, both in this Group and on the wiki itself.

The emphasis for both contributors and non-contributing business
owners alike needs to be on communication and collaboration. Framing
RocWiki in an Us-versus-Them light will only harm the wiki and the
community.

On Mar 18, 5:46 pm, "Peter Boulay" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Correction---Joanna---I do NOT know the owner of Michelina's..he emailed me
> of his own volition
>

> On 3/18/08, Joanna Licata <joanna.lic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Pete may be unable to keep NPOV because he personally knows the owners, as
> > he says in his comment on the page. Nothing against you, Peter. I think
> > maybe people who are removed from the situation at hand are best to make an
> > impartial judgment regarding it.
>
> > I agree we should ask MissGia to clarify her comment, however, if she
> > chooses not to, it should stay.
>
> > In general, if a restaurant owner wishes to address the claims, he/she
> > may. However, we should not delete comments intended to flame. They show
> > that the restaurant's practices create drama. We should delete in cases of
> > vandalism, or threats of intention to harm a specific person or property, in
> > which case we notify specific persons. He/she/they can, in turn, alert
> > authorities if the need is felt.
>

> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Andrea Cogliati <Andrea...@hotmail.com>

[Rich Chiavaroli]

Peter, you should probably edit your comment on the page that says the following then

 

"2007-09-12 18:11:57   Marc-I know the owners and I'd encourage you to call and speak with them about this issue. —PeterBoulay "

[EastSideStephen]

...

> 2. Nobody is empowered to remove posts, however, unless they can be
> demonstrated (not necessarily proven) to be in violation of law or
> community standards. RocWiki standards are posted on the Etiquette
> page.

...

I think, then, that we need to amend our standards.

It's simply irresponsible to our community to allow malicious and
possibly libelous statements like MissGia's to go unchecked.
It's irresposible to give a forum to people who mean to intentionally
do harm to a business or individual for personal reasons.

The comment needs to go

> 3. We have flagged MissGia's comment to indicate that there are
> questions about its merit among the community. (and remember that
> unless we have proof of his claim of identity, we can only use the
> RocWiki handle to identify the contributor in correspondence)

Right now, the flag is drawing more attention to it.

[Peter Boulay]

Posted on missgia's user page:

 

MissGia-please email the Google group. We have concerns over a recent comment of yours.

 

[Joanna Licata]

See your comment on the page Peter.

[DaveMahon]

> I think, then, that we need to amend our standards.

> It's simply irresponsible to our community to allow malicious and
> possibly libelous statements like MissGia's to go unchecked.
> It's irresposible to give a forum to people who mean to intentionally
> do harm to a business or individual for personal reasons.
>
> The comment needs to go

Under the proposal at http://rocwiki.org/Wiki_Community/Etiquette/Proposal,
you might have had some grounds. However, this has not generally been
accepted. In fact, it's been pretty completely ignored, which you can
interpret as you will.

It's entirely possible that RocWiki has reached the threshold whereat
more well defined policies (and enforcement) are needed. The middle of
a "crisis" is not the time to be discussing new Etiquette Policies
though.

>
> > 3. We have flagged MissGia's comment to indicate that there are
> > questions about its merit among the community. (and remember that
> > unless we have proof of his claim of identity, we can only use the
> > RocWiki handle to identify the contributor in correspondence)
>
> Right now, the flag is drawing more attention to it.

At this time, the only other option, given standing policies, would be
removing the comment to the restaurant's Talk page, noting that the
comment is under review and providing a link to this thread.

[Rich Chiavaroli]

To me, the only way it's irresponsible is if you think that people who visit the page aren't smart enough to understand that it's more than likely a biased statement. Honestly, the comment makes MissGIa look much worse than any harm that's done to the establishment. The real comments on the page are much more detrimental.

 

It should be obvious to anyone who reads the comment, especially with the NPOV tag, that it has no substance and it's of a personal nature. She's hurt her own reputation with the comment, not that of the restaurant.

[MrPhil]

Time to do a serious acceptable use policy. I recommend the group
loses the qualifying language to what we have so far.

On Mar 19, 2:29 am, DaveMahon <david.m.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think, then, that we need to amend our standards.
> > It's simply irresponsible to our community to allow malicious and
> > possibly libelous statements like MissGia's to go unchecked.
> > It's irresposible to give a forum to people who mean to intentionally
> > do harm to a business or individual for personal reasons.
>
> > The comment needs to go
>

> Under the proposal athttp://rocwiki.org/Wiki_Community/Etiquette/Proposal,

[Peter Boulay]

I have found a way to contact MissGia and I expect her to either clarify her comments or get on here shortly....

[Peter Boulay]

MissGia has joined the group

[Missgia]

First and formost, before i even attempt to delve into be trolling or
anything pertaining to the comment, i would like to know how it is
that you know i was a "fired employee" and have gotten other info
pertaining to me from my "past employer." I thought that my info on
the site was MINE and MINE alone and you are not supposed to share
that with anyone. If i do find that my personal info was given out for
any reason to people outside of rocwiki, or hell, even ON rocwiki, i
will be persuing this further. There is a reason my real name is not
posted on this site....reason being is that i have worked in MANY
places and seen a lot of things that i think that customers should
know. These things are not happy things that the business owners will
like, but it is the truth and it effects anyone who chooses to use
those establishments. That said, i am not a disgruntled former
employee, i am not out to ruin anyone's rep or out for revenge. The
things i post and the things i say are so that people KNOW WHAT IS
GOING ON. I am currently under scrutiny for this "rats" comment and
also things being said about FFF. I find this to be a load of crap.
Maybe i was cryptic in the rats comment (which i will address
momentarily), and for that i apologize. I can see where it would come
off as malicious, when really, it was not. Yes, i did work for them,
and yes, i was fired, for reasons that were never said to me. I was
simply told i "rubbed them the wrong way." The only sense i can make
of this is that one of the owners slapped my in the ass one day while
i was on tiptoes reaching for some bread. I told him this was
unacceptable and i would not tolerate that....2 days later i did not
have a job. Anyways, as for the rats comment. This was not a comment
made in jest. This comment is full truth.....there are (or WERE, when
i worked there) rats, and i don't mean "rats" in the sense of nasty
people. I mean rodent rats. This is not heresay, as i did see them
many many many times and it was something that the owners were "doing
something" about. I watched one night as a dishwasher bludgeoned a rat
to death with a garden hoe in the back prep area. I also had to deal
nightly with scampering from the ceiling in the main dining room, so
loud that i was scared the ceiling was going to cave in, or one would
fall thru or a customer would hear it. I can promise you that none of
this is fake, none of this conjured up to make the restaurant look
bad. i did, in fact, try to call the health department right after i
stopped working there. After being sent in circles and being told so
and so would call me back, or send this person an email yada yada
yada, i gave up. So that is it.....attack as you would like.

[Peter Boulay]

As I said in my email to you:

You have my word--I did not and would not give any info to Michelina's. I don't do that.

He approached me.  He sent an email to me of his own volition that you worked there previously.  I merely posted the email to the googlegroup in order to get community discussion started on how to handle the situation.

In addition: No contents of this discussion or that email have been posted on rocwiki nor do I plan to do so.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Missgia <rocksta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

testing, since last comment did not work

On Mar 17, 12:58 pm, "Peter Boulay" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thought you should all see this.....I invited him to the rocwiki group and
> to the 3/30 meeting
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From: <bestf...@rochester.rr.com>
> Date: Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM
> Subject: to Peter, rocwiki

> To: blu...@gmail.com
>
> Peter, from what I can find around here it seems you are somewhat in charge
> of the web site rocwiki. I think it's a great site to let people say how
> they really feel about whatever it is about this city. However. I don't not

> think it is ok to post rantings of discruntle ex-employees who are

> deliberately trying to tarnish or ruin a business.  Please remove the rant
> from "missgia" about Michelina's Italian Eatery.
> Thank you for understanding,

> Jay Palermo, Owner & Chef- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Andrea Cogliati]

From what I read, I'm under the impression that not everybody is
aware that this is a public group and everything written here
(including senders' email addresses) is publicly available on Google
Groups page: http://groups.google.com/group/rochesterwiki/ (not to
mention indexed by "big brother" google).

So, the fact that this discussion will or will not be posted on
RocWiki is (mainly) immaterial.

Andrea

[Peter Boulay]

Ok Andrea-I was not aware of this. Because members and messages had to be approved (depending on preferences) I thought this was a private group.

 

Thank you for the information

 

[Andrea Cogliati]

Peter,

btw, the owner of the group can restrict viewing rights to members
only. (I'm not suggesting it should be locked, though)

Andrea

[Missgia]

testing

> > > comment is under review and providing a link to this thread.- Hide quoted text -

[Peter Boulay]

Test received

[Missgia]

It doesn't matter anymore. I really think you have missed the point by
miles. The point is, if you are not in charge in any way shape or
form, you should have directed Jay to ME. Furthermore, you started
this discussion, stating that you yourself found it rude. Then you
went on to contact MY OLD ROOMMATE, have a discussion with him ABOUT
ME and then get my WORK EMAIL and email me! I've never met you before
in my life....where do you get off doing this?? I am not even supposed
to be getting or sending personal emails....i can lose my damn job.
Not that it matters now, since you already sent one and i am sure
it's been caught already. I just really feel that it could have waited
til i eventually signed on and that a small matter was blown WAY up
over something that is the truth. So whatever, the owner wants to
invite you all to show you all how "rat free" he is for your little
meeting and tell you all how unwarrented everything i say is....fine.
That's great. I can just be the bitch of the site, and if that is the
case then i want my account deleted.

On Mar 19, 4:35 pm, "Peter Boulay" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Test received
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Peter Boulay]

Here's my thoughts on the issue at this point.

 

1) Someone complained about the WIKI--since I'm not in charge--the concern was sent to the WIKI COMMUNITY to be addressed. This is standard procedure for these issues.

 

2) I had no idea how to get a hold of you...based on the concern of Jay from Michelina's I decided the sooner we could settle it the better. Dragging these things out is never good.  Yes I called Rob--he's an old friend. Said we had "an issue with something on RocWiki" and I needed to contact you. No "discussion" as you put it occured-was maybe a 2 minute phone call.  I knew he'd know how to get a hold of you. I asked him for "AN EMAIL ADDRESS" and HE emailed me your work address so that's what I went by. Cest la vie.

 

3) When I was at Sutherland, external email was ok. You could've just said "Please don't email me here." and I would've stopped. Besides I was replying to your emails....and when you did ask me to stop I did.

 

Pete

 

On 3/19/08, Missgia <rocksta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Joanna Licata]

Pete,

Simply put, there was no reason to bother her at work, however immediate your need.  I also feel you overstepped your bounds in using your personal connections to try to contact her, especially because you are not a friend of hers.  This could have waited until she replied when she got home from work.  Some people don't constantly check their email.  Also, I believe using her work email without permission was an invasion of privacy.  Sure, Rob gave it to you, but she never said you could use it.

Also, you seem to be the only person communicating with the owner of Michelina's.  If he has a problem with the community, he should email the list and not one individual.

~Joanna

[Peter Boulay]

I did request he join the group, Joanna...repeatedly. You have seen what he's written. ALL I have done is forward his emails to the group. I have not had extensive communications with him. I merely said it's a Wiki community issue and I would send the info to the group for further discussion.

[DaveMahon]

Let's get back on track folks!

The matter at hand is the singular comment. This is not the time for
debating policy and procedure.

In my opinion, MissGia's comment should stand. However, I would like
you to amend the comment to provide an approximate time frame for when
you witnessed the rats. Such an observation two weeks ago is a very
different thing from two years ago. Make that one little change and I
feel that your comment should absolutely be restored - and without any
designation of suspicion by the community.

We very much need to have a discussion about what constitutes
acceptable behavior and problem handling on everybody's part. But on a
Google group in the midst of a heated discussion is NOT the time.

I very strongly encourage EVERYONE who has participated in Google
Group discussions to actually attend the March meeting. At that time,
it WILL be appropriate to begin a policy and procedure discussion.
From that initial discussion, we can continue the dialogue here.

In the meantime, however, it would also behoove everyone to learn more
about how incredibly easy it is for anyone, anywhere at anytime to
find anyone else once given even the slightest hint at background
information. It is an unfortunate reality that there is no such thing
as privacy or anonymity once you actively participate in the modern
economy, workplace and/or Internet. We are always on record and we
should all act as such.

[Kim Reed]

Peter-

Missgia replied to the googlegroup wiht her personal hotmail account. Why did you feel the need to announce to the world her place of employment in your bullet #3 below? I believe this is overstepping boundaries once again. Quite frankly I find it a bit frightening that you went to the lengths of contacting an acquaintance of hers and then asking for a way to contact her. It would have been quite acceptable to wait for her to respond on the wiki. Not everyone is sitting in front of a computer all day refreshing for new emails or instant messages. Furthermore, if someone contacted me and said "I need to get in touch with [insert name here] as we have an issue on the RocWiki" I would think it was a prank call or joke. The wiki is a fun community tool, something does not require 3 am calls to the President and all involved parties. 

I am pretty creeped out.

Regards,

Kim

[BadFishROC]

Peter,

My friend, I do think you have gone a bit far on this one. Thanks for
the tenaciousness, but maybe it was bit more than was needed given the
situation. You help this site a lot and I do appreciate that.

[Peter Boulay]

Point made...the beatings can stop now.

 

Thx

 

[Peter Boulay]

Kim--you are right...I have overstepped and I apologize to all--MissGia especially.

 

I feel this is why we need a SOLID process on how we deal with these things....what steps do we take and in what order???? Let's nail this down to make it easier for all.

 

Pete

 

[BadFishROC]

No beatings needed. Happens to everyone at one point or another.

On Mar 19, 8:28 pm, "Peter Boulay" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Point made...the beatings can stop now.
>
> Thx
>

[Missgia]

Peter, although i SEE you saying that you are sorry, i am pretty sure
you are only relenting for fear of the "mob." First of all, Sutherland
(since you all now know my name, where i work, where i USED to work,
the name of my boss, the fact that i was fird AND the name of my old
roommate) does NOT allow outside emails for certain programs. The
program that i am on is only 2 weeks old and very strict. I was indeed
reprimanded for getting outside emails yesterday before i left, and
this is only my 2nd week of work. So for that i am NOT pleased. I hope
that you can take this as a lesson learned and step back a little bit
from this "role" you seem to have taken. You do a lot of work for the
wiki, but i personally think that the li nes are getting very blurred
is business owners are emailing you. But i am done with that rant.
Another point that i would like to make but was much too heated
yesterday to speak calmly about it the matter at hand of the right to
say what it is that i want or feel. I do apologize to the owners of
Michelina's for feeling that i am was trying to take down there
business, but that could not be further from the truth. I was simply
stating MY opinion (though not clearly, i am in FULL agreement of
that) and what i saw in my time working there. If you are all going
to make an uproar about a bad reaction from a business owner due to
something that i said, then you are going to have to seriously begin
restricting what anyone says about any restaurant in question, and if
any business owner complains, follow the same procedure that you have
done with me. This site is designed for people to be able to get on,
read reviews and review places themselves and i honestlly believe that
90% of you out there want to know if i place you go to eat has rats. I
know i would. So the fact that the owner got angry really should not
have been an issue at all. Rather, he should have been told that my
comments were my opinion and there was nothing that could be done
about that. Or he could have very easily hopped on the wiki site ( i
understand he could not get on here for one reason or another, but he
could have gone on the wiki) and defended himself there. I think was
blown way out of proportion for me stating what happened in my
experiences there, which really, is what i THOUGHT this wiki was all
about.

On Mar 19, 12:48 pm, "Peter Boulay" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MissGia has joined the group
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Peter Boulay <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have found a way to contact MissGia and I expect her to either clarify
> > her comments or get on here shortly....
>

[Rich Chiavaroli]

This all seems to be a comedy of errors...

 

MissGia, I can say that from my point of view that no one is in an uproar.  Here's my take on what the general order of events was.

 

The owners of the restaurant contacted Peter to ask that the comments be removed.

Peter sent the email to the group.

There was some discussion about what to do.

The decision was made to contact you to have you weigh in on your comments since the comment was kind of cryptic and you are also an active member of the community.

After you did that, it appears that the decision has been made that your comments are fine, but need a little bit of clarification.

 

I don't personally agree with how this was executed, but I do think that what attempted to be done was appropriate. I agree with you in part that there was no reason to run around frantically just because a business owner wanted a comment deleted, but on the other hand I do think that the appropriate thing to do given the circumstances was to contact you and get your input. That doesn't mean that how you were contacted was appropriate, but I think that horse is already dead.

[Missgia]

Rich, and on that i totally agree with you. I know that notifiying me
was the way to go and yes, you're right, the horse is dead so i will
not say that again. I just think as consumers we have a right to say
what we feel and that business owners should take what we are saying
and change it rather than cry libel because they don't like what
they're hearing.

On Mar 20, 11:13 am, "Rich Chiavaroli" <rch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This all seems to be a comedy of errors...
>
> MissGia, I can say that from my point of view that no one is in an
> uproar.  Here's my take on what the general order of events was.
>
> The owners of the restaurant contacted Peter to ask that the comments be
> removed.
> Peter sent the email to the group.
> There was some discussion about what to do.
> The decision was made to contact you to have you weigh in on your comments
> since the comment was kind of cryptic and you are also an active member of
> the community.
> After you did that, it appears that the decision has been made that your
> comments are fine, but need a little bit of clarification.
>
> I don't personally agree with how this was executed, but I do think that
> what attempted to be done was appropriate. I agree with you in part that
> there was no reason to run around frantically just because a business owner
> wanted a comment deleted, but on the other hand I do think that the
> appropriate thing to do given the circumstances was to contact you and get
> your input. That doesn't mean that how you were contacted was appropriate,
> but I think that horse is already dead.
>

> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Missgia <rockstarrr1...@hotmail.com>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Peter Boulay]

Very succinctly said Rich...Thank you.

I don't bow to the "mob" but I can realize where I have erred...whether you accept my apology as honest or not MissGia--it is for you to decide. Take your own path...I have taken mine.  For the final time I admit that the path taken to resolve this issue may not have been appropriate but the intended goal was clear. Hopefully a new process can be developed to make a clear path to avoid these issues in the future. The path I am taking over this next week before the meeting is to design a process that hopefully can suit ALL our needs.

I have also emailed MrPhil, who as an attorney, I think could assist us greatly in this process if he'll attend the meeting. We all have skillsets--I think he could be a good resource here.

I'm done now and I sense an impending nap before I go to work myself...

[Missgia]

Why would an attorney need to be consulted on this issue? Again, you
appear to be blowing this out of proportion.

On Mar 20, 11:44 am, "Peter Boulay" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very succinctly said Rich...Thank you.
>
> I don't bow to the "mob" but I can realize where I have erred...whether you
> accept my apology as honest or not MissGia--it is for you to decide. Take

> your own path...I have taken mine.  *For the final time* I admit that the

> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Missgia <rockstarrr1...@hotmail.com>

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Peter Boulay]

He's part of the RocWiki community and has been interested in helping us craft a policy before.

[Andrea Cogliati]

MissGia,

please, don't be so oversensitive: you are not under attack and Peter
is not consulting an attorney because of your comments or this issue!
I see you are still upset (and I'd say you have some points),
probably it's not a good idea to keep replying here, unless you
understand the whole scenario. If you want and have time to read the
archive you'll see that this is really part of a broader discussion.
I'll try to resume the main points hoping you might see everything in
a different perspective.

- There is an ongoing discussion about the opportunity to keep the
comment sections in the wiki. It has been going on for a while and I
believe than someone expressed some concerns in the past also
- A few business owners approached the Wiki and the Wiki community in
different ways: modifying wiki pages, posting comments, writing to
users/admins, joining the mailing list and attending meetings
- Business owners say they are concerned about potential damages
coming from untrue comments by disgruntled ex-employees, competitors,
ex-boy/girlfriends, psychopaths, ...
- Some wiki users are sympathetic with the owners and also suggest to
remove comments entirely
- The majority of the opinions expressed on the list suggest to keep
the comment sections and avoid removing comments but in very specific
circumstances
- Others advocate a stricter moderation policy on the wiki content
and comments
- A couple of users, including some of those in favor of a "free
speech" policy, are concerned about potential legal liabilities for
the site owners, admins and for the wiki community in general (that's
why a lawyer opinion might be useful)
- Several users expressed different concerns about comments that,
even if true, caused or might cause troubles because of how they are
written, because they are written by someone in "conflict of
interests" or because they are unsubstantiated

This is a very rough summary of what's going but, to me, the moral is
that free speech has consequences. The community has to decide what
to do but stating principles without weighing the outcome is recipe
for disaster.

Andrea

[Missgia]

Hey Andrea- i think i misspoke. I wasn't saying that he was getting
an attorney involved because of what *i* stated. I thought Peter was
saying getting an attorney involved because i felt my privacy was
breached.
Although i know you can sense my irritation with this (hiding emotions
has never been one of my strong suits), i am in full understanding as
to why this has come up and become such a big deal, i truly do. The
only thing that i am truly upset about is the way that this situation
was handled by Peter. In a way, i feel as if this wiki situation was
just taken as a class 1 disaster and had to be addressed IMMEDIATLY. I
could see leaving me a comment on my page to attend this group to
defend myself, i just feel that my privacy was overstepped and now
quite a few people have a lot more info on me than i wanted. Part of
the reason that i liked the wiki was because i could post without
worrying that people know who i was. Now i cannot do that. A friend of
mine left a comment on there saying "is this Krissy" and i was even
apprehensive of leaving THAT there because i liked my privacy so much.
I did not delete it though, because i understand that not deleting
comments is a big thing about what the wiki is.
So i do apologize if i was coming off heated, since it was not my
intention, but yes, i was very upset about HOW it was handled, not at
all about the issues arising from the comments itself.

[Peter Boulay]

To follow up--with regard to individual User pages--if you want to delete something off your page I say go for it.

 

I see User Pages as being the property of the individual user--if you don't want the "Krissy" comment there, by all means nuke it. I would completely understand why you'd want to.

 

[EastSideStephen]

I'm not sure where this expectation of privacy came from.

Privacy is detrimental even. That's why you are encouraged to use your
real name when you create an account.

Personally, I don't think you should say anything on the website to
which you don't want your name attributed.

My full name is available by clicking on my email link. I stand behind
everthying I have said on Rocwiki and on this mailing list.

[DaveMahon]

It's a reality of the Internet that there is no such thing as privacy
or anonymity for all intents and purposes. Your friend was certainly
able to identify you. A collections agency, private investigator or
identify thief would have had the exact same ability to track you
down. Short of never saying anything to anybody, you're going to
reveal your identity online to someone who is paying attention.

And as Stephen has pointed out, that can be a good thing, because it
forces us to monitor ourselves and avoid making unintentionally
misleading or alarming statements. On the flipside, of course, is that
this sometimes makes us feel compelled to refrain from telling the
truth. Debating the ethics of online privacy is definitely outside of
the realm of this forum, however.

Now, please PLEASE update the comment on the Michelina's Talk page to
indicate THAT you saw rats and WHEN you saw them. Approximates are
fine. Just resolve the ambiguity, please, and the comment will go back
to the main page and this tempest in a regional-interest web site can
end.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Peter Boulay]

New email from best...@rochester.rr.com (Michelina's-please realize I have not emailed him again since I referred him to the googlegroup list-I am just passing it along):

 

"You know what you guys do what yuou have to do, if your not smart enough to see that this isnt a ligitimite critique about a buisness and merely SLANDER then i will let fate take care of her and the "commuinity" as a whole. goodluck my freind"

 

[DaveMahon]

If he feels that MissGia engaged in defamatory speech, there are legal
recourses available to him. However, we have no way of proving or
disproving her claim, which makes this a case of he-says-she-says. It
doesn't make sense for us to get involved in that kind of argument,
because we all lose in the process.

On Mar 21, 6:39 pm, "Peter Boulay" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> New email from bestf...@rochester.rr.com (Michelina's-please realize I have

> not emailed him again since I referred him to the googlegroup list-I am just
> passing it along):
>
> "You know what you guys do what yuou have to do, if your not smart enough to
> see that this isnt a ligitimite critique about a buisness and merely SLANDER
> then i will let fate take care of her and the "commuinity" as a whole.
> goodluck my freind"
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Peter Boulay]

By the way so there is no doubt what I told him, here's my reply that I sent (in saying I don't doubt his concerns-I am in no way saying I believe him--just saying I agree there are concerns):

 

Jay--

 

I don't doubt your concerns over the situation and pardon my confusion, but I have tried to outline some things that need to be done to try to help you clarify the situation.

 

The Rocwiki group wants to hear from you directly--not through me. I do not make sole decisions on the Wiki and I am not in charge.

http://groups.google.com/group/rochesterwiki

 

If you could log into the site above and post directly we can resolve this situation A LOT quicker.

 

Thanks

 

[BadFishROC]

Peter, if you stop posting his messages here, he will (eventually)
stop emailing them to you. Next time he does, reply back and let him
know that if he wants to say something here, he will have to post here
himself. Why would he bother joining the group at your suggestion when
all he has to do is email you?

I would suggest this to be a general rule of thumb. Try to avoid
posting numerous

On Mar 21, 11:56 pm, "Peter Boulay" <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way so there is no doubt what I told him, here's my reply that I sent
> (in saying I don't doubt his concerns-I am in no way saying I believe
> him--just saying I agree there are concerns):
>
> Jay--
>
> I don't doubt your concerns over the situation and pardon my confusion, but
> I have tried to outline some things that need to be done to try to help you
> clarify the situation.
>
> The Rocwiki group wants to hear from you directly--not through me. I do not
> make sole decisions on the Wiki and I am not in charge.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rochesterwiki
>
> If you could log into the site above and post directly we can resolve this
> situation A LOT quicker.
>
> Thanks
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Peter Boulay]

Badfish--you are entirely correct and that's what I said in the last email I wrote him....no more games-period.

[Missgia]

I would like to ask whoever is in charge of this rocwiki to please
delete my account. This Michelina's thing is ridiculous and now this
"JohnLance" is leaving comments on my page saying really awful things
about me (i dont know how to flag it or i would). I am being attacked
elsewhere because of the fiasco this has caused and i see that people
are saying that this does more damage to how people think of me than
anything else, so i just dont want to be a member of this community
any longer. I am going to leave the comment from JohnLance on my
account so you are able to see that i am not lying, but i would like
my account taken off. Thanks...it was fun while it lasted.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Missgia]

I am sorry, i was just upset by the comments on my page. I would like
to stay a member of this community and not be deleted.

[DaveMahon]

It is generally considered acceptable to edit anything on your page -
including deleting comments left by other people. Just to be clear,
however, it is not acceptable to edit people's comments in such a way
that it would change the conveyed intent of the message.

Go ahead and remove the comment from JohnLance from your page.

Also, thank you for clarifying your Michelina's comment.

[Missgia]

Is what i stated in this MIchelina's comment more acceptable? And if
the owners still complain about this one, what will be the course of
action?
Sorry to be a pain, i am just sorta confused on the whole thing.

> > to stay a member of this community and not be deleted.- Hide quoted text -

[Peter Boulay]

I have no issue with your clarification....I think its fine.

 

I think if the owners have further issues then they need to come to the Googlegroup or nothing else should be done.
 

I think our policy needs to include open lines of communication on both ends.