Blu Aardvark wrote:
May I point out an interesting double-standard here? Most Wikipedians
believes that publishing personal information is harmful (I agree with them for the most part, by the way). Why, then, are there no qualms about Wikipedia editors publishing personal information of those that have fallen from favor?
I agree that whatever policy is generally agreed to must be applied evenly across the board.
Wikipedia currently has several pages which contain my real name, city of residence, and phone number (granted, I initially supplied these myself, but the point stands).
When you add these yourself your permission to include the material is implicit.
Wikipedia contains virulent personal attacks alleging that I am a neo-Nazi/anti-Semite/Nazi sympathizer/holocaust denier - attacks that still remain on Wikipedia's servers. This all has been copied to numerous websites all over the internet as Wikipedia's content is scraped and spammed by anyone looking to make a few quick advertising bucks, and I have actually received telephone calls from people who got my number from Wikipedia. Yet that information is not removed - or when it is, it is re-instated. (I'll admit all this pissed me off at first, but I've found I don't really care anymore).
If you are indeed involved in the kind of activities that you describe, your personal involvement in Wikipedia is irrelevant to including this information. What becomes important is whether the activities were reliably reported elsewhere. Since many would consider that mentioning one's involvement with such activities as derogatory, the sourcing of such information is particularly important.
So let's get this straight - we're proposing a Wikipedia policy to ban all links to any website which might have a page identifying a Wikipedia editor, and yet Wikipedia editors not only publish personal information on their own servers, they ensure that that information stays in place, and they allow it to be copied by any fuckwad hoping to get some cheap content on the internet that they can use to hopefully turn a profit on.
We cannot control the behaviour of external "fuckwads".
I personally believe that [[WP:BADSITES]] is unneeded. Current policy already allows for reverting and blocking editors who post personal information or links to such information. The proposed policy seeks to ban all links to any site that has published the personal information of Wikipedians, but I'll admit that I find the proposal quite silly. There are occasions on which such links are not only beneficial to discussions, but also necessary (in the proper citing of resources, for example, or in relevant articles such as the one on Wikitruth). An outright ban on them would amount to nothing more than blatant censorship.
It is presumptuous and arrogant to judge the behaviour of participants on other sites. It is also contrary to the spirit of NPOV to impose that principle on other sites. Of course other sites will engage in libel or copyright infringement, or other activity that may be illegal. Assuming good faith should include assuming that what is put on these other sites is perfectly legal. If there is something illegal there it is up to those affected to demand that they clean up their site. When they do that our links will then be to cleaned up sites or dead.
Ec