--- Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
Rich Holton writes:
<snipped>
- Banning users due to their professed beliefs or
associations
...
However, the second is also beyond question -- in the negative. There is no way to reconcile such banning of contributors by POV with Wikipedia's mission and culture. How would we be able to claim NPOV when certain groups are not allowed to participate?.
In general, I agree. For most people, in most groups, this would be true. Yet some people are members of groups whose goal is that which you described in issue 1 - part of their goal is to make such threats! If someone is a member of an organization whose very goal is to make threats - and eventually carry them out - then (in these cases) wouldn't we be obligated to ban such users?
How can we say that it is wrong to make threats, let alone harm people - but then allow Wikipedia to be used as a forum to help strengthen Nazis and other groups who do make threats as policy, and who do carry out violent acts?
There is no God-given right to use a Wiki or work on an encyclopedia. We have a rather open-minded editorial policy, and it does not constitute censorship. Thus, we should not allow "contributors" whose admitted endgoal is to intimidate, or to incite violence. If we scare away the blacks, the Jews, the gays and the Catholics by opening up this encyclopedia to violent hate groups, then what are we left with? We will end up limiting the free speech of the many other people who will certainly be driven away, and we will be damaging our own reputation for n#o good reason.
I would argue that it is quite sufficient to do what we normally do -- examine the conduct of each individual editor, his actual edits, and react accordingly. Guilt by association makes me very uneasy. I believe it's quite unwise -- and unnecessary -- to interpret the wider goals of a group with which an editor affiliates, and block them preemptively.
Clearly, we know from experience that people with extreme views are much more likely to be badly-behaved and ignore policy than others (particularly when the groups they associate with calls for POV-pushing at Wikipedia). So is there any reason to bother with these people? Yes. To build an NPOV encyclopedia, it is helpful to attract contributors from a wide variety of viewpoints -- the diversity is healthy and helps us maintain neutrality. I posit that Wikipedia would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than without; could such an individual exist?
-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com