Alec Conroy wrote:
By and large, it seems like the BADSITES-equivalent proposals are "mostly dead"-- I think everyone recognizes that "Never link to any 'site that is sufficently bad', deletion exempt from 3RR" has been rejected by the community. (Rejected in the formal sense-- it's hotly disputed, doesn't have consensus, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon).
Such proposals may be mostly dead, but of course: "MOSTLY dead" isn't "all dead". I see there's at least one BADSITES-equivalent proposal still floating around here on the list, namely the proposal that says "Any site that is sufficiently bad shall be declared unreliable, and may not be linked to". And, like any perinneal debate, I'm sure there will be more such proposals for the foreseeable future.
Did you really intend "perineal" instead of "perennial"? I suppose that a pain in the perineum is close enough to a pain in the butt. :-)
Ordinarily, I'd use a hypothetical example here, but I've found that in this debate, hypothetical examples are invariably dismissed when someone says "Oh, that could never really happen". So I actually do have to use a real-world example if we're going to talk about this.
Real-world examples allow a discussion to be personalised. It's much easier to "understand" the problem in a narrow context. Looking at that situation in a larger context requires that people review their own assumptions. That's rarely easy.
The whole experience was extremely upsetting for all involved, and if you look around on Sci-Fi community blogs, you can see that Wikipedia lost a lot of respect in that incident. Many in that sci-fi-blogger subculture seem to have some harsh words for Wikipedia as a result of the experience, and I'm sure we alienated a lot of people who could have been valuable contributors. The people who edit and read Making Lights felt bullied, abused, and harassed.
The harsh words and loss of respect were for Wikipedia in general, and not just the misguided individual. Outsiders cannot be expected to be knowledgeable about Wikipedia's internal politics, or that such antics are the preserve of a minority of Wikipedians.
Speaking as a reader/editors of Making Light, Sci Fi megagenius Cory Doctorow summarized the experience thusly:
"This is unseemly. You appear to be attempting to punish someone who dislikes you by removing references to her site. This seems like retaliation, not an effort to improve Wikipedia. What's more, the repeated demand to change something posted to her site seems like extortion, not an attempt to improve Wikipedia. TNH claims that Wikipedians pursue petty vendettas at the expense of quality. Please conduct yourself in a way that does not lend itself to this interpretation of the project."
Such people will be more forgiving of an honest error. Normal behaviour would suggest that an erroneous comment, even one that is prima facie libellous, can be easily removed when it is brought to our attention, and misunderstandings can be forgiven without further ado. When either the "victim" or the community overreacts it becomes a much bigger problem.
Ultimatlely, that particular incident came to an end when the disputed material was deleted from ML, at least temporarily, and the links to ML were restored.
So blackmail worked?
Now, let's not obsess over WHO did this. I swear, I'm not bring this up to get in a dig at anyone. The admin in question admits at least having "overreacted", and as long as the behavior has stopped, it doesn't matter WHO did this-- so by bringing this up, I'm sincerely, sincerely not trying to pick on anyone. We've all done things in the past, on wikipedia or elsewhere, that we shouldn't be throwing stones over this past thing right now.
There are some people who are unable to abstract general principles in the absence of a concrete incident. The problem there is that generalisation from a particular circumstance with particular facts distorts the general concept, and forces us into unduly circumscribed modes of thought. Examples are fine, but they are just that, and should never be a part of a general rule.
But that said, I can't help but notice that this sort of abuse seems inherent to any BADSITESesque polices of the form "no linking to sites that are sufficiently bad".
Sure, it's the misguided idea that the world's problems can be solved through punitive measures.
I believe any future policy, in order to be successful, must recognize the past abuses of BADSITES, and must include reasonsable assurances that the proposed policy won't lead to the same kind of abuses in the future.
The experience has had to be lived, and it is hard to avoid going through the same mistakes when you haven't had the experience in the first place. :-(
Ec