On 21/09/2007, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Not all discussion, just public discussion of
specific
attacks, unless of course the attackee wants to talk
about it.
We are an open community. It would be great if we could discuss things
in private, but the only shared discussion is unfortunately a public
one. This is a core aspect of Wikipedia. There is such public objection
to your approach precisely because is undermines that core.
Who is this we of whom you speak? I am not a Wikipaedian.
If the community feels that openness should extend to the
point of public discussion of the private lives of individuals,
that community possesses an incredible lack of discretion.
But if you do
let people talk about it, some of them may
agree with the attacks, or say that the attackee needs to
have thicker skin. As Fred pointed out, some things which
may be said are false, but not obviously so. I'm not saying
you would, but it is common practise.
Thus, public discussion of the matter can have very real
damaging effects on the attackees.
I'm not denying any of that. However, the notion that we should suppress
information because some people might end up with an opinion not
officially sanctioned is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. More
importantly, it doesn't work.
And what right do random people on the internet have to
judge the sex life of a private individual?
Going into the JFK article and removing all mention of
conspiracy
theories because they are bunk will not, in the long term, reduce their
popularity or longevity. Sure, some people will not hear about them, so
they will have the "right" opinion. But you'll make the conspiracy nuts
more adamant, as you have just proved the conspiracy is even bigger than
they thought.
JFK is a very public figure. The average internet user -
whether an admin, a banned user, or a WP critic - is not.
[snip]