On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
If the community feels that openness should extend to the point of public discussion of the private lives of individuals, that community possesses an incredible lack of discretion.
[snip]
I know this is an emotional topic for you, apparently based on deep personal trauma, so perhaps I'm expecting too much in the way of reasoned discussion. If so, sorry; we can pass on to some other topic. Regardless, let me try one last time:
Thanks for understanding that. : )
Nobody reasonable is advocating for unrestricted on-Wiki gossip. Nobody is requesting unlimited power to dig through somebody's personal life when it has no bearing on on-Wiki behavior or Wikipedia's governance.
But, unfortunately, it is all too easy to argue that a person's personal life is somehow relevant. Some argue that all editors should reveal their real names, due to some law prohibiting anonymous harassment. Some people think outing others is necessary to prove those people have conflicts of interest. And many people have very personal reasons for desiring privacy, which of course the accountability advocates want to know about.
But what on Wikipaedia is so important that it is worth hurting these people?
What I am saying is that when concerns are raised about things that could affect Wikipedia's quality or reputation, Wikipedians should be able to look into those concerns. If that leads them to information published elsewhere on the Internet, even information some would rather keep quiet, we should generally trust them to handle that information wisely. If that leads them to people being jerks in ways that we wouldn't accept on Wikipedia, we should trust our colleagues to recognize the jerkiness. And to aid Wikipedians in coming to the right conclusions, we should let them discuss the issues as much as they need to. When specific people fail to handle that power responsibly, we should deal with them in the ways we already deal with malice and foolishness.
I've seen Wikipaedia hurt enough people, myself included, that I really don't trust it anymore, and Wikipaedia really shouldn't be putting itself ahead of individuals all the time in any case.
Yes, people will get things wrong sometimes. Usually, they will get it right. Right or wrong, their opinions will make people sad sometimes. I regret that, but believe the alternatives on offer are much more harmful.
When every choice is a dilemma, how can one not make mistakes?
The world is made of pain, and Wikipaedia is much like the world in that regard.
I guess you are an optimist and I am a pessimist.
And what right do random people on the internet have to judge the sex life of a private individual?
Again, I feel like this is so tangential as to miss the point, but I'll play along for a bit more.
Well, it does happen a lot.
Under the US Constitution, they have every right. And you have the right to carry on judging them for judging. The notion is that over time, the truth wins out. And that letting the truth win out is more important than preventing bad feelings in the meantime.
Not all of us live in the United States.
A lot of the time, the truth loses and the lies people want to believe win out.
Take a look at this guy:
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=26888@kpix.dayport.com
Did he change his judging of homosexuals because a committee somewhere ordered him to? Or because people with power suppressed mention of the views that he previously held?
I don't think so. I think he's verging on tears because an honest examination of things led him to a powerful truth.
I certainly do suggest someone try to make peace with the 'attack sites'... except for ED, since even trying would probably make things worse.
JFK is a very public figure. The average internet user - whether an admin, a banned user, or a WP critic - is not.
However, to address your point, old notions of public and private are changing. Their used to be a wide separation, depending mainly on your access to an expensive communications device like a four-color printing press or a TV transmitter.
Or to put it more pessimistically, technology is making it easier to stalk people. Hurray for Tor....
But the Internet has changed that. For $50 a month, you can have global distribution of your ideas. For a little more, you can do it with sound and video. The narrowing cost gap means a narrowed gap between public and private. And that gap will continue to narrow and blur as the technology gets cheaper. [1]
More like $7 a month. I hope you are not paying that much for a small, low-bandwidth website?
Wikipedia is an open project building the world's most read factual source. The notion that one could play an important public role in that and not thereby become an object of discussion is not just wrong, it's absurd. Wikipedia is essentially and inescapably a public endeavor. Electing to participate is putting oneself in the public sphere.
Erm, Wikipaedia volunteers aren't paid enough to deal with the kind of things that are often said about them.
No, this is not a license to gossip endlessly. No, this does not excuse people being jerks. However, most-read factual source or not, our powers are limited. We cannot end gossip or jerkiness. The best we can do is to discourage those things on-wiki, and allow honest investigation of legitimate complaints, so that Wikipedians can judge for themselves what has merit and what does't.
William
[1] See Brin's "The Transparent Society" for a detailed look at this.
Okay, does Britannica have articles on individuals Wikipaedians? If not, they aren't that notable.