On 26/09/2007, William Pietri <william(a)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.