On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:10:07 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Furthermore, something I'm noticing more and more lately is that an inescapable part of this sort of banning and censoring is a disquieting element of paternalism. The removals are performed by a small number of presumably-trusted senior editors, on the grounds that they know that the material being removed is "hurtful to the project". But since part of the alleged hurt is always the associated hype and drama, the removers tend to ask that the removals not be discussed either. We're supposed to trust that the person doing the removing knows what's best for the project, knows what's best for us, is better at deciding for us what we should and shouldn't discuss than we are ourselves. Obviously, the bigger and more disparate the project becomes, the harder it is to maintain that kind of trust.
This is a very difficult line to tread. The Wikipedia community in general is much given to moral panic, and everybody has an opinion on everything.
I am a great advocate of discussion. If a link is removed, good faith discussion is *absolutely* appropriate. If the person removing the link can't make a rational argument then we have a problem.
On the other hand, there seems to be a presumption in some quarters that the discussion should only start *once the link is back in*. This is, to my mind, completely wrong. If a long-standing editor identifies anything as potentially damaging, we should extend the courtesy of discussing it before simply reverting. It's part of making sure that Wikipedia is not perceived as evil, and part of making sure that people have the confidence to contribute to controversial areas.
We should also remember that what we are talking about here is the margins. Most people with strong views do *not* get banned.
We are talking, for the most part here, about banned users, and banned users tend to advocate content which is pretty far from the ideal of NPOV - that's why they get banned. We are, despite all that is said here about the margins, extraordinarily tolerant of dissenting opinion.
There is a lot to be said for one year bans, as handed down by ArbCom. If someone goes away for a year and then comes back and behaves impeccably, well, kudos to them. If they consistently attempt to evade the ban, then that tells us something quite important about them and their attitude to Wikipedia. If they go away and actively campaign to damage Wikipedia in retaliation, or harass the people who they perceive as having banned them, that tells us something else again. The more they do that kind of thing, the less I want to hear what they have to say. I don't think this is an especially remarkable viewpoint.
Guy (JzG)