Slim Virgin wrote:
For what it's worth,
here's how I would define an "attack site": "a website that regularly
publishes, or a large portion of which includes, the purported
personal details of editors (unless those editors have themselves
explicitly revealed the information); personal attacks; defamation;
personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of,
threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of
privacy, or violence."
Thanks! I really appreciate seeing details. Making your proposal more
clear will hopefully focus the discussion, which I think everybody would
benefit from. A few questions:
1. Is there an implied "of editors" on each one of those?
2. If so, why would we stop with protecting Wikipedia editors only?
3. Does motive matter when revealing an editor's real-life identity?
4. Do the editor's on-Wiki actions affect the seriousness of
revealing their identity?
5. What would we accept as evidence of those various behaviors?
6. Given that definition of attack site, what specifically would you
like done about them?
7. How do you feel that those actions will help Wikipedia in ways
that outweigh the harm of those actions?