[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blastsWikipedia

[Poor, Edmund W]

> I am responding to nobody in particular, because there's such a wide  
> variety of hysteria to respond to that I can barely choose.
> 
> The objection that Seigenthaler is having to Wikipedia is not 
> even to  
> the process or to the speed at which we fix vandalism. It is not to  
> our current quality, it is not to anything fixable.
> 
> The fundamental objection that Seigenthaler has is that we allow  
> people to post freely. His objection is to the belief that we ought  
> not carefully monitor our users and that we ought avoid turning them  
> in to the legal authorities in a dispute. His assumption that the  
> article was posted by a vandal is dodgy at best - I would be shocked  
> if he were not the subject of some conspiracy theory or another, and  
> if whoever posted the article were anything more than a particularly  
> stupid POV pusher. If Wikipedia were to in any way assist with  
> turning a mere stupid POV pusher in to legal authorities, I know my  
> support for the site would drop off swiftly.
> 
> The entire goal of this project is freedom and openness. That opens  
> us to stupidity, and we have an obligation to deal with the  
> stupidity. And if Seigenthaler wanted to criticize us for our  
> failings in reverting this stupidity and to the process that let it  
> sit there for 153 days, he'd be right. But to criticize us for being  
> open and free in the first place is not a problem we can or should  
> fix. And to my mind, it is a problem that puts Seigenthaler so far  
> outside of any of the core beliefs of this project that the point is  
> only narrowly worth debating.
> 
> A final comment - we have been adamant and active about finding ways  
> for our Chinese contributors to participate even as their government  
> tries to shut them down. On what possible grounds can we even  
> consider acquiescing to an argument that amounts to "It should be  
> easier to sue if I don't like my Wikipedia article." Think of what  
> would have happened in the Bogdanov Affair, or with John Byrne, or  
> with dozens of other cases if what Seigenthaler were calling 
> for were  
> to come true.
> 
> -Phil

Agree 100% with both points: 

1. We should not help people punish stupid or POV-pushing contributors.

2. We should facilitate contributions from (and access by) people
suffering under dictorial regimes which censor "anti-government" POV.

Ed Poor