There are many, many different professions with affirmative reporting requirements. I've been using the word 'warning' instead of 'threat' because threat implies a particular tone that is entirely different. A warning might be "You've mentioned you work in the Air Force, but please be aware that if you provide more completely identifying information about yourself I or others may have to report you." Now, thats polite, isn't a threat and is issued in a situation where "just go ahead and do it" doesn't apply.
The reason the "whole conversation has been about the former" in this case is because that is most closely what happened (between OM and VO) *and* it is the situation with policy implications. (On-wiki incivility is dealt with by policy, off-wiki non-harassing incivility is irrelevant). I'm satisfied with what Mike Godwin wrote, which is that if politely issued it is wrongheaded to construe policy as prohibiting warnings of a legal obligation.
For examples of some professions who must report information in various situations: Physicians, lawyers, judges, psychologists, school administrators, teachers, social workers, guidance counselors, essentially all law enforcement, military personnel. This class obviously includes many millions of people, so it makes sense to adjust the policy to account for the affirmative reporting requirement issue. Nathan
On Jan 3, 2008 5:15 PM, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 2:00 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
(Unless you were told to make the threat in exchange for your family's life? ... Yes, I'm being facetious. :) )
It still wouldn't be ethical. It might be necessary, but it wouldn't be ethical.
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l