On 10/14/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/14/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
However, a victim of a stalker is not the equivalent of a stalker.
If someone is using Wikipedia as their medium for harrassing an
Wikipedia editor, that doesn't make the Wikipedia editor who is being
harrassed complicit in their victimhood and equally guilty of abusing
Wikipedia.
One person is trying to insert a link into an article. Another person is
trying to remove that link. We should not care which one is a
longstanding
editor; the important thing is what benefits the
encyclopaedia.
Sometimes a
link to the harasser's site serves a purpose
(
michaelmoore.com), and
sometimes it does not. It's impossible to draw a single line here. Those
who
are harassed have a conflict of interest because
they often do not want
to
see a personal attack on them linked to, but this
is a factor that
should
not be considered over benefit to the
encyclopaedia.
In short: do what benefits the encyclopaedia. If it does not matter
whether
the link is there or not, then obviously we side
with the harassed
editor,
but otherwise, we cannot let personal wishes
dictate the content of
Wikipedia.
To say say that because you're being stalked by another person who
found you on Wikipedia gives you, the victim, a
conflict of interest
in Wikipedia empowers the stalker to the point of the ridiculous--it
will make Wikipedia the favorite place in the known universe of
stalkers everywhere to be granted their every dream: entangling the
victim hopelessly without recourse and with plenty of blame in their
lives. Do you realize that a stalker doesn't even have to know their
victim's name to begin stalking them? Stalking takes place first in
the mind of the stalker.
Since when was it an insult to point out that people have strong
opinions
about the malignment of their character?
Stalkers count on being able to manipulate others besides their victim
to create a tie where there is none. Assigning
equal quilt for the
problem of stalking to the victims is precisely what stalkers are
seeking--there are seldom any crimes today where this is still done.
It used to be everywhere, not just in some countries, that victims of
rape are held culpable for being raped. This is the case in only a
few countries, though. Most of the world today does not assign a
victim guilt in the crime done to them. Stalking is abberant
behaviour, and it is a crime. The victim is not the guilty party, and
is not equal to their attacker in this.
People are not guilty for removing links to websites. People are guilty
for
removing links to websites which supplement and
benefit the
encyclopaedia,
and this applies regardless of their standing as
an editor or how much
we
like them. The point I was trying to make here is
that we have been
letting
the subject of harassment overshadow this whole
debate - that it is
something which must be given secondary consideration in light of the
encyclopaedia's primacy.
The courts and the psychiatric community has long since realized that
stalkers do not have to be aided by their
victims, and that victims
are not the cause of their being stalked. Please don't say that they
have an arguably equal conflict of interest, when they don't have to
ever engage their stalker in any way to be made a victim, whereas the
stalker has to actively target and attempt to engage not just their
victim, but the community on behalf of the stalker targetting the
victim. Granting this to the stalker is way beyond acceptable.
We are not talking about people who sit back when harassed. We are
talking
about people who launch witch hunts which
ultimately hurt the
encyclopaedia.
Johnleemk
"People who launch witch hunts which ultimately hurt the encyclopedia?"
Okay, Isee this remark was made to introduce your agenda to the
discussion. I'm not interested.
I'm honestly confused. What agenda is that? I don't mind if you don't
respond, because I don't have a specific agenda to push; all I intended to
do was clarify my original remark.
Johnleemk