Gregory Maxwell wrote:
and in this and many many other cases, there really isn't an argument the the subject screwed up and somehow deserves the embarrassment of having the truth told.
Yes!
... and most importantly, we should consider it unacceptable because this sort of harm is a direct result of Wikipedia policies and procedures, and is most likely completely avoidable without compromising on neutrality.
I am not sure about "completely avoidable"... though we should try.
The only reason I mention this is that there is another form of invalid "paralysis" thinking which says "We can never solve this problem completely, therefore it is a waste of time to try to improve the situation at all."
This sort of harm is a direct result of Wikipedia policies and procedures, and is most likely *significantly* avoidable without significantly compromising on neutrality, quality, openness, and our other values.