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.