cprompt <cprompt@tmbg.org> wrote:

james duffy wrote:

>> james duffy wrote:
>> > I agree. People need to be able to discuss matters openly and
>> frankly. It
>> > really is nobody else's business but the people on the mailing list
>> what is
>> > said on that list.
>>
>> Well, I don't agree at all. Wikipedia is a transparent public
>> project, what we do is all out in the open for anyone to see.
>>
>> Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
>
> Communication on this list should only be available (a) through a
> carefully restricted means (eg, through being a contributor to
> wikipedia), not simply through a google search, and (b) perhaps with
> some time delay mechanism. There is, for example, a US Democratic
> Party political consultant called James Duffy, a soccer manager called
> James Duffy and a number of others. What happens if someone does a
> google search, finds attacks made on me under the name of this email
> account and presumes it was some other 'James Duffy', one with a
> public profile. That is why organisations 'always' provide restricted
> access to discussions such as those here, usually with a time delay
> mechanism. They universally find that unrestricted access blocks free
> discussion and prevents, not encourages, free speech.

Many organizations also restrict what parts of their website can be
edited, if any. They restrict access to their services to those without
an account, and they verify accounts. Personally though, I think some
protection should be offered against "ego surfing" where information on
a person from the list is indexed in Google. This can still be an open
and transparent public project with a fully searchable mailing list
archive. I think that anyone should be able to search the archive only
after clicking an appropriate link on Wikipedia.org.