On 10/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I never heard of Bagley until this thread started. Now I read comments from someone, who has also proven the unreliability of his judgement on something as trivial as trivia, libeling a living person by calling him an asshole and dangerous, and expecting us to trust these comments.
If these hurtful/rude/attack/libelous/whatever comments are on Wikimedia servers, I suggest they be excised. (Disclaimer: I have not read them personally, so I can't judge what they are.)
I believe that even those accused of the most heinous crimes have a right to a defence, and even if they would not want to appear here personally there need to be standards in the way that we deal with such claims.
If there is not any sort of cabal or conspiracy, why bring it up? Why make up these vicious stories pretending that others are seeing them? What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old way of doing things.
Ec
When it comes to the safety / health / feelings of individual human beings, the encyclopaedia is not involved - what matters are the individuals. Consensus is all well and good for talking about encyclopaedia articles, but that doesn't give the Wikipaedia community the right to start destroying real people's lives.