On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 03/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > If you're referring to the linking of real names to account
> > > > without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list
> > > > been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org
> > > > unlinkable.
> > >
> > > I think the issues with your slippery slope arguments have already
> > > been pointed out.
> > If I'm being silly, it's only because such a blanket ban is silly.
> Define "blanket ban".
I'll define it for you:
"Blanket ban": scare-term thrown around for effect in order to try to
convince Wikipedians that Wikipedia is being "harmed". The term is
often raised on wikien-l in relation to the MONGO case, invoking the
"slippery slope" fallacy that the New York Times and even Wikipedia's
own maillist archives will soon be banned. In reality, the MONGO case
has only been applied to a tiny number of sites, none particularly
valuable or interesting, and to a tiny number of editors, who were
generally involved in breaching experiments.
See also: "The sky is falling".