On 26/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Stopping vandals isn't attacking, it's defending against an attack.
Saying the vandals are right to attack /again/ through the infamous "attack sites" is OK since the poor vandals are the victims is ... (sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English, so I lack the words to express just how perverse that is).
I don't think AB is saying it's "OK" in the sense of morally justified, or that they are pure victims.
A few are, most probably aren't. Even if they were attacked first, outing crosses a definite line in my book. I would prefer they left the names and pseudonyms of individuals out of it, and yelled at Wikipaedia as a whole, but especially if the people won't listen to them, I can understand the reasons they wouldn't.
I think the point is that we shouldn't be surprised if they attack again when they feel victimized.
Exactly. Furthermore, retaliating against them beyond simply stopping them from editing, Wikipaedia is leaving its members vulnerable to these attacks.
That seems reasonable to me. History is full of situations where tit-for-tat retaliations escalate conflicts, with both sides feeling that their actions are either morally right or excusable given the provocation of the other side. I don't see anything that would make us immune from that dynamic.
William
Which is why it would be better for Wikipaedia to *not* retaliate beyond simply stopping them from editing.