It's all about the Social Contract.
Using the cubicle analogy, it's always better in an office to make it clear what is acceptable in writing, and then posting it for all to see. That's the whole idea of an employee contract in the workplace. "Harassment based on race or gender will not be tolerated." Is a typical rule in the workplace.
We need to make our boundaries more clear and have a few more rules of use, especially about user pages and their content. I just went through an arbitration that resulted in one editor being banned for a year, not for our editing conflict, but because he turned his user page into a shrine for personal attacks on me.
Maybe we need an Asimov corollary based on the Three Rules of Robotics.
1. Wikipedians must never post material that calls for illegal activity or the harming of human beings or, through inaction, allow such text to remain unchallenged.
2. Wikipedians must follow the posted guidelines and defend Wikipedia as a collaborative community without violating rule 1.
3. Wikipedians have a right to defend their edits and protect their reputation in a reasonable and collaborative way without violating the other rules.
We do not block people for who they are, but for what they post and for behavior that threatens Wikipedia as a community.
Calling for attacks on Jews or any group, suggesting illegal activity, calling for terrorism, all fall outside the boundaries of the above rules.
-cberlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org on behalf of Peter Mackay Sent: Wed 2/8/2006 8:26 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
<<SNIP>>
How do we maintain NPOV and avoid charges that we are a haven for paedophiles, neo-Nazis and supporters of terrorism?
Peter (Skyring)
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/8/06, Chip Berlet c.berlet@publiceye.org wrote:
It's all about the Social Contract. ... suggesting illegal activity...all fall outside the boundaries of the above rules.
Right. Suggesting others are involved in a lynching http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&a... isn't suggesting illegal activity: it's the privelege of a notable expert.
nobs
Chip Berlet wrote:
It's all about the Social Contract.
- Wikipedians must never post material that calls for illegal activity or the harming of human beings or, through inaction, allow such text to remain unchallenged.
But "illegal activity" is open to interpretation. There are obvious illegal activities, but there are many more whose illegality is questionable, or whos legality may vary from one place to another.
Ec
Oh, it was misread. External links from Wikipedia with advice like "Train others to step forward if leaders are arrested, and arrange beforehand for legal support for all those who are detained. Be aware that some people, especially those with family caretaking responsibility or medical issues, need to avoid arrest." http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/countering_repression.html
Doesn't say anything about the wisdom of taking children to tear-gassing events, however. And one wonders how many times the author of such wisdom "sang in jail" or "washed tear gas" out of his own eyes.
nobs
On 2/8/06, Chip Berlet c.berlet@publiceye.org wrote:
It's all about the Social Contract.
- Wikipedians must never post material that calls for illegal activity or the harming of human beings or, through inaction, allow such text to remain unchallenged.