On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 02/08/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's perfectly compatible to hold the opinions "I support SV" and
"Why
>> the **** did you all blow the list up this morning with atrociously
>> inappropriate rape comparisons".
>
> Comparing this to my life is a form of empathy... in any case, I
> believe I answered your question here:
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078543.html
>
> In any case, the psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse, for
> the most part.
on 8/2/07 10:27 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert(a)gmail.com wrote:
Not exactly. You're making an argument for symmetry, in which
comparisons of generalized abuse with rape are reasonable. In fact,
though there are similar attitudes and pathologies involved, the vast
majority of more generalized abusive people are not rapists and do not
operate in a like manner. It's not just a matter of further
generalized extreme; there are also sexual power aspects to most rapes
which are simply not present in generalized abuse situations.
And psychology studies of internet human interaction indicate that
most online abusers are NOT abusive in real life, and never will be.
Many of them are reveling in the ability to stir up trouble online
with no retaliation, and are in real life relatively meek and
powerless. They find the depersonalizing aspects of internet
communications offer them an outlet to let loose anger and repression
that they haven't got the psyche to reveal in person.
I understand the stalking thing. I've had someone arrested for
bothering me and my wife in real life and online.
I also understand the rape thing; two of my ex-girlfriends and several
of my other female friends are rape survivors. One hid a highly
abusive relationship from me and other friends for over a year out of
shame and guilt, staying in it because she was too afraid to leave or
ask for help.
Internet-only harrassment and "outing" are different.
They aren't minor things. They certainly can be life-changing events,
and traumatic to the victims. Wikipedia should take them seriously
and take actions to prevent people from doing it to our participants.
But they're not the same.
I believe in good faith that you believe that there's a legitimate
analogy. But you're deeply and disturbingly wrong about that. I
respect that you believe that you say, but it's an opinion which is
arguably incorrect, and clearly and overwhelmingly divisive. The harm
brought to this community by strenuously arguing the analogy is not
minor.
I do not see allowing the situation to settle down with things as they
stand now to be a good end result to today's discussions. We cannot
be having divisive issues lying around like that like unexploded
bombs, waiting to blow up the community again. This was a terrible
terrible day for the mailing list, and it can't happen again. Until
you understand your role in that and self-moderate your participation
here, we have a problem.
Some excellent insights here, George. And, yes, this thread (and others like
it recently) is symptomatic of some real problems at the heart of this
Project. We ignore them at our own peril!
And, it is time for those who eagerly identify themselves in the media as
being prominent figures in Wikipedia to begin taking an active role in its
health.
Marc Riddell