We've had this other "essay" for a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm
That was formerly the WP:SUICIDE policy I did, extended by others in several ways, including adding handling of threats of violence. It's documenting the standing best practices without asserting it's a formalized policy, as two attempts to do a formalized policy via policy process melted down. I just did the essay to note what responsible people were doing and why, and that seemed to be completely controversy free.
Bstone is pushing his proposed policy below for reasons which are only clear to him. I asked him why his was preferrable to the existing one (turning it into a policy if people wanted) and he hasn't really answered that.
-george
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/03/2008, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
there's been some recent work at; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Threats_Of_Violence
anyone see anything there they disagree with?
best,
PM.
Umm, yes. I find that the language of this proposed policy is too strong, and creates a moral imperative that is improper on Wikipedia. As editors, none of us are obligated to do *anything* on Wikipedia, and our responsibility ends with things we actually do (edit articles, block users, comment on a policy, etc.). It is unacceptable to create the sense that anyone would have a real-world obligation to report something to authorities simply because they are Wikipedia readers/editors.
At best, this should be a guideline, and only when the language is watered down so that it says things like "encouraged but not obligated" and recognises that editors are not *required* to carry out any specific actions.
I've posted comments to the proposal as well.
Risker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l