Armed Blowfish wrote:
What I object to is stopping all discussion of particular attacks, both alleged and actual.
Not all discussion, just public discussion of specific attacks, unless of course the attackee wants to talk about it.
We are an open community. It would be great if we could discuss things in private, but the only shared discussion is unfortunately a public one. This is a core aspect of Wikipedia. There is such public objection to your approach precisely because is undermines that core.
It may make targets (or perceived targets) feel better in the short term. In the long run, it creates darkness where suspicion and indifference breed.
But if you do let people talk about it, some of them may agree with the attacks, or say that the attackee needs to have thicker skin. As Fred pointed out, some things which may be said are false, but not obviously so. I'm not saying you would, but it is common practise.
Thus, public discussion of the matter can have very real damaging effects on the attackees.
I'm not denying any of that. However, the notion that we should suppress information because some people might end up with an opinion not officially sanctioned is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. More importantly, it doesn't work.
Going into the JFK article and removing all mention of conspiracy theories because they are bunk will not, in the long term, reduce their popularity or longevity. Sure, some people will not hear about them, so they will have the "right" opinion. But you'll make the conspiracy nuts more adamant, as you have just proved the conspiracy is even bigger than they thought.
Further, attempts to suppress information has counterintuitive effects. A publisher loves it when a book is banned by somebody, as it dramatically increases sales. People will rate a banned product as better in every way than similar people to whom it is freely available. Jurors can place more weight on a fact that they've been ordered to ignore, not less. And people prevented from hearing one side of an argument will favor that side more, not less, when they learn about the ban. [1]
And, as David Gerard points out, this has been amply borne out in our context as well. As well-meaning as the attempts to suppress information have been, they have achieved precisely the opposite of their goal.
The pains you mention are real, and worth weighing. But the solution you propose hasn't worked and will continue not to work. Trying harder to make it work will harm both the people you are trying to help and Wikipedia as a whole.
William
[1] See Robert Cialdini's "Influence", Ch 7, "Scarcity" and the studies he references there for pretty much everything in this paragraph.