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