Will Beback wrote:
Perhaps you could address some of the things we are saying, rather than the much larger number of things we haven't? I'd still welcome replies on a number of my points, for example.
Could you restate the points you'd like addressed? This is a long thread and I'm not sure which points have or haven't been covered already.
Frankly, having written them once and having equal access to the archives, I'm a little frustrated at the request. However, here they are in summary form:
* In terms of persons affected or behaviors changed, what specific benefits do you believe your proposed policy provides? And how does it achieve that? (E.g., "It will reduce harassment because..." or "It will make a harassed editor feel supported because... * How do you reconcile your suggested POV-driven content changes with the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV? * Why do editors alone benefit from your proposal? If we're protecting people, shouldn't we protect everybody? * Doesn't your proposed policy benefit editors while harming readers, thereby privileging one over the other? And can that really be squared with our mission? * How does somebody not liking Wikipedia reduce their value as a source in their area of expertise? * Even if your proposal isn't just a punitive measure against people who attack us, why wouldn't outsiders, including the persons whose sites we are de-linking, see it that way?
I look forward to your replies.
William