On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
What this debate boils down to is what kind of atmosphere we want on Wikipedia. Some people are arguing that we don't want an atmosphere of censorship, and that's a valid point of course. My argument is that we shouldn't want an atmosphere in which some people are being outed, attacked, ridiculed, and having their families and their friend's families contacted by lunatics.
I have posted out on the internet under my real name for two decades, and I've participated in a lot of discussions that were more virulent than anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. And I've never seen any real life threats come out of it, though I have been roundly vilified on occaision. The atmosphere on Wikipedia is better than this, but only better; it is the same atmosphere, only not as bad. Well, except for one thing: the need to stand over one's work and protect it from idiots.
The idiots are out there, all over Wikipedia, and this proposal has handed them another tool. I don't think the threat of erasure is protecting anyone from being outed, but it is clear that the threat of erasure is useful for harassing people or even just stirring up trouble. And you can say that we don't to worry about that, but it is not so. We shouldn't write policies which invite idiots to commit idiocy and the malicious to act with malice, and that is the history of this proposal's application.
I don't think the proposal is really protecting anyone. Someone who is that intent on doing real life harassment can get past the erased links with ease.