Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
Depends on the site. If the site is used in a
campaign of
harassment, maliciously, yes.
Fred
Maliciousness or lack thereof is irrelevant. (WP certainly attacked
DB before DB started outing... other people.) The goal should be
to protect people. People can be hurt regardless of the presence
or absence of maliciousness.
I disagree that our purpose should be to prevent people feeling hurt.
Imelda Marcos feels terribly hurt by all the accusations against her and
her husband, for example. Ferdinand was really just a savvy investor,
you know.
Or you could consider the case of the activist S. Brian Wilson, who was
protesting military aid to Nicaragua. A munitions train crew
intentionally ran him down, cutting off both of his legs. Navy medical
corpsmen at the scene refused to treat him, leaving his medical care to
bystanders and the eventual arrival of a public ambulance. He didn't
blame them; as a Vietnam vet, he knew they were just following orders.
The train crew, however, did blame him, suing him for "humiliation,
mental anguish, and physical stress". [1]
Who feels hurt is not a good indicator of actual wrongdoing.
As an organization, we should strive mightily to promote civil
discussion, and to swiftly reign in community members who are acting
with malice. And as people, we should always strive to comfort the
afflicted, regardless of whether their affliction is earned. But we
shouldn't mix the two by giving the institution a role in making people
feel better.
William
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Brian_Willson#Concord_protest_and_injuries,
plus Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion", p216-7
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri