On 8/29/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 28 Aug 2007 at 14:57:16 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Either the system works... we are mostly honorable people, and have enough honest and principled people that if something seriously sinister started someone would stand up and publically announce it and call for it to end.
...and get labeled a "troll", his messages summarily deleted as trolling, and eventually he gets banned, then any subsequent person who expresses similar ideas gets labeled a "sockpuppet" and banned too, even more summarily. And the clique pats themselves on the back for defeating another bad guy.
I don't think that's a fair description of what goes on at all.
Might not be fair, but it reflects the perception of how we deal with whistle-blowers. Arguably we haven't had a serious case of something rotten in the state of Wikipedia being exposed, but is there any assurance that how we deal with false whistle-blowers will not be the same way we deal with real ones?
Johnleemk