Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point
of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia
isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable
putting a slanderous article about him may lead to legal problems.
- White Cat
On 6/28/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is
Essjay is not a
notable
individual to the point that consensus
established that there shouldn't
be
an article on him.
And there isn't. But there IS an article on the incident, and his real
identity is not only germane, but indeed crucial to the matter. I
suppose you could take out the phrase "R*** J*****", and anyone with
enough fingers to type "Essjay" into Google would get past that
omission.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an
individual. Since Essjay
isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an
individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but
Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at a
legal
risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
Nonsense. I haven't checked every last detail of the article, mind
you; but the basic outline of the story-- the misrepresentation, the
interview, the Wikia account, the questions, the revelation, the
departure, the note on the interview-- these are simple, uncontested
truth. And it was all conducted in public, so there isn't the
slightest possibility of a privacy angle on it.
When you call it "harassment", you ARE dealing in morality. You are
saying that we, as an institution, have to express forgiveness for
this person by erasing the record of his wrongdoing (or what many,
maybe a majority, would view as wrongdoing). I just don't see the
obligation. He did something conspicuously unethical, carelessly sowed
the seeds of getting caught, and got caught. All the media that have
paid any attention to Wikipedia took notice, because what he did cast
doubt upon the whole proceeding. I don't see that we have to protect
him from the consequences of his actions, but I also don't think we
CAN protect him. The truth is out there, and it isn't going to be
hidden just because we erase an article.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l