Quoting Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu schrieb:
Quoting Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at:
There isn't much of an issue here of a moral panic. The people we are dealing with, such as Brandt, Bagley and Barber will stop at nothing until they get precisely what they want out of Wikipedia or destroy the project. There is no acceptable response other than to block them on sight.
We won't stop before we get precisely what we want either. Though we've got the power to block. Sounds like a battle to me.
If you wish to use that framework, you are welcome to. If it is a battle, it is a battle between those who wish to provide free, neutral information to humanity and those who would see that goal either thwarted or perverted.
So we are back to: "Either you are with us ("good") or you are with the thwarted or perverted ("evil")." IMHO this is both wrong and way too simple.
Kindly don't put words in my mouth. First, I didn't use the battle language use did. As I said above "If you wish to use that framework, you are welcome to. If it is a battle..." Second, I did not assert that there was simple dichotomy in action here. If I thought there was any such issue, I'd have indef blocked an T and a few others a long time ago. None of that changes that Barber, Bagley and Brandt are people who care only about destroying Wikipedia or perverting it to their purposes and we must be ever vigilant against their attempts to undermine the project.