joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback <will.beback.1(a)gmail.com>om>:
How should a policy deal with this situation?
Should we maintain our
link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject
of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that
community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more
important than his privacy or well-being?
As I've attempted to explain before, having the link to their article doesn't
substantially reduce the editor's privacy or wellbeing. It is especially
ridiculous in either your RoosterChat case or the MichaelMore case because
anyone who is looking for information about RoosterChat will want to know what
the website is anyways and can google for it. So all we are doing is
compromising NPOV and losing the moral highground of not involving our
encyclopedia with our disputes.
I take issue with what I believe your saying. What we're talking here
about are disputes that are due to encyclopedia editing. Yes, there are
some folks with pre-existing battles who come to Wikipedia to settle
scores, which never should have come to WP to begin with. That's nt what
we're talking about. The cases that are the most shocking are those that
originate with editors enforcing Wikipedia rules. When folks are doing
good they shouldn't be targetted for harassment by POV pushers. When
they are we should stand by them. We lose the moral highground and
compromise NPOV when we say to folks that are trying to change Wikipedia
content that they are free to harass those who enforce Wikipedia
policies, and editors who don't like it need to go edit elsewhere so the
POV pushers can have their way.
W.