Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 18/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
However: we should not, cannot, must not attempt to enact blanket bans on all links to "attack sites"... It's possible to justify such an attempted ban under the "protect them from harm" doctrine, but a ban goes too far. It harms the project, and does *not* help the injured editor.
...Wikipaedia's lack of concern for its own editors lowers my opinion of the whole project.
You see, this is the part that really sticks in my craw. If something gets proposed that is claimed to "protect an editor from harm", and if I disagree with it, I'm automatically accused of having a "lack of concern".
Not at all: I might be (I am) *very* concerned, but merely in disagreement on the usefulness or appropriateness of that particular proposed remedy.
The apparent "you're either with us or against us" mentality is as shortsighted and divisive here as it is anywhere else.