[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[George Herbert]

On 10/11/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2007, at 6:16 AM, fredbaud at waterwiki.info wrote:
>
> >
> > I think that's an accurate impression. They take it in. Hook, line
> > and sinker.
>
> And why shouldn't they? It's not like we give them a single reason
> not to.
>
> At this point, the claim has been raised in multiple high-profile
> sources, and now in a reliable source. Yes, we know Brandt is a
> nutter. But we are a very small percentage of the Wikipedia userbase,
> little yet of the world. And the censorious approach we have taken on
> this matter, led mostly by SlimVirgin herself, is increasingly
> proving idiotic at best and disastrous at worst.
>
> Seriously. This entire problem would have gone away if SlimVirgin
> hadn't been so idiotically thin skinned about it and had actually
> made some sort of fucking comment on the subject instead of trying to
> suppress the entire discussion. And, because SlimVirgin is a friend
> of many of us, far too many of us (myself included) went along with
> her poor judgment and deferred to her desire for privacy by aiding in
> removing all mentions of this accusation. That was wrong of us, and
> that bad judgment has bitten us on the ass several times already.
>
> Nobody is seriously suggesting that Brandt, Bagley, or any other
> nutjob running an attack site be taken seriously. But we can do a
> better job of confronting them than removing all links to them. If
> somebody who is smart enough and respected enough to write the
> headline story for Slate can fall for Brandt's shit, it's probably
> time for us to wake up and realize that Brandt is pretty good at what
> he does, and needs a response beyond censorship.
>
> But no. Instead we have a member of the arbitration committee
> advocating a policy that has already shown itself to be idiotic at
> best and disastrous at worst.
>
> -Phil

While I agree that the mishandling of stalking / abuse situations has
largely gotten us where we are today, I would have hoped to see people
make that point in a civil and respectful manner rather than crossing
the line into blaming the vicitms as you did above, Phil.

This was not constructive, even if it was wrapped around an important point.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com