On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No, the litmus test should be "does this
link benefit Wikipedia in any
way".. And the answer, as it turns out, is "almost never".
This is equally fair. Indeed, it's really a different wording of the
same concept. If the link benefits Wikipedia in any way, it's pretty
likely that removing it will stir up drama. And vice verse,
Well, except for the fact all the trolls etc. that cry "censorship"
the second you delete something that is *not* benefiting Wikipedia.
Well, I have to grant that this is fairly legitimate. Despite my best
efforts when I was an admin on that forum, it was next to impossible to
keep a lid on things, and things have only gone downhill since.
Actually, it's not very hard to keep a forum civil. Set up proper
rules, delete posts that contravene them, and ban repeat offenders.
Nonetheless, there are a number of occasions where
there are reasoned
discussions that don't involve personal attacks
It's like panning a thousand tons of ore by hand to find one speck of gold.
providing the venue for it and cheering on the perpetrators.
Harassment and stalking, no. That isn't cheered on in the slightest, and
users who have been found to have engaged in it have been removed from
the forum in the past.
Hmm, hypothetically speaking, if someone started trying to get in
touch with what he believed were past work colleagues, boyfriends,
family of boyfriends, etc. of a Wikipedia editor, would he be banned
for harassment and stalking, or would he be lauded as perhaps the most
respected member of the forum?
As for "defamation", I don't think
a valid concern regarding Wikipedia Review. There have been some nasty
personal attacks, but nothing defamatory. Of course, other sites *do*
engage in this practice.
Here's another hypothetical question; if WR were posting what it
thought was the real name of a Wikipedia editor, and further asserting
that that person was a CIA spy, mentally unbalanced, and various other
similar claims, would you consider that "defamatory"? Or do WR posters
have a unique definition of defamatory that ends with "...except when
it's about Wikipedia editors, then anything goes."