On Jun 11, 2006, at 11:34 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:
There certainly are a lot of nutters out there. Letting them know that threatening us will get them anything they want will place our admins in far more frightening danger than anything they face today. All you have to do is look up someone's address to get Wikipedia to roll over and beg? They'll be on us in swarms.
The "don't negotiate with terrorists" policy makes sense. But it assumes some things. Specifically, it assumes a general means and policy of defense. "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" makes sense because of the millions for defense. Yes, the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists. It also invades their countries and murders them.
Wikipedia offers no defense, and no protection. And users who have had nothing to do with Daniel Brandt are put in danger. I had never edited his article and had never spoken with him when he began contemplating making me leave my PhD program. But I became a target. I was and am powerless to stop being a target. So are about 200 other people. Including, let's note, a bunch of teenagers. And do you really think most of us, when we made our first edit or accepted our RFA, thought we were getting into this?
If Wikipedia is adopting a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, fine. But if it won't protect us that way, it has moral obligation to protect us some other way. A negative answer doesn't cut it here. If we're not negotiating with Brandt to get rid of Hive Mind, what are we doing? Because "nothing" isn't an acceptable answer.
-Phil