Thats an interesting philosophical argument, but there is a reason most
communities of human beings have a plethora of rules. Its indeed true that
restrictions sometimes make it impossible to know what someone might do in
complete freedom - but so what? I don't care what they "might do" in a
state
of nature, I care about what they "will do" on Wikipedia. If we have a
mechanism for enforcing topic bans we have no need of knowing whether
someone would otherwise violate the ban. We don't want them to violate the
bans so we can drop a hammer - they have an end other than as a game of
chicken.
Nathan
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/14/08, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'd oppose this.
If someone isn't able to voluntarily leave a topic alone, he or she
shouldn't be welcome on the entire project. The idea of topic bans is
rehabilitation not punishment. Topic bans are generally enacted to people
who are well-intended (or so we assume per AGF) and very motivated in
contributing to that topic in a manner that is not acceptable.
In addition, adding too much handicap to an account promotes
sockpuppetry.
We should be promoting honesty and mutual respect
not cunning ways to
avoid
sanctions.
I agree with Cool Cat and Greg on this. It's the Garden of Eden
metaphor all over again. Removing free will makes it impossible to
evaluate judgment or know whether "rehabilitation" is a realistic
goal.
—C.W.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l