james duffy
wrote:
I agree. People need to be able to discuss
matters openly and
frankly. It
really is nobody else's business but the
people on the mailing list
what is
said on that list.
Well, I don't agree at all. Wikipedia is a transparent public
project, what we do is all out in the open for anyone to see.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Communication on this list should only be available (a) through a
carefully restricted means (eg, through being a contributor to
wikipedia), not simply through a google search, and (b) perhaps with
some time delay mechanism. There is, for example, a US Democratic
Party political consultant called James Duffy, a soccer manager called
James Duffy and a number of others. What happens if someone does a
google search, finds attacks made on me under the name of this email
account and presumes it was some other 'James Duffy', one with a
public profile. That is why organisations 'always' provide restricted
access to discussions such as those here, usually with a time delay
mechanism. They universally find that unrestricted access blocks free
discussion and prevents, not encourages, free speech.
Many organizations also restrict what parts of their website can be
edited, if any. They restrict access to their services to those without
an account, and they verify accounts. Personally though, I think some
protection should be offered against "ego surfing" where information on
a person from the list is indexed in Google. This can still be an open
and transparent public project with a fully searchable mailing list
archive. I think that anyone should be able to search the archive only
after clicking an appropriate link on