-----Original Message----- From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:08 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
On 20 Sep 2007 at 21:33:58 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote: [long line rewrapped]
We do not have an exception to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] which permits linking to a personal attack on an external web site.
Which is relevant if you buy into the concept that "everything not explicitly permitted is prohibited."
Anyway, the questions at issue tend to be of the form "Does the above apply in any way to a link, for a purpose unrelated to any attack, to a site that happens to also have attacks in it?"
Depends on the site. If the site is used in a campaign of harassment, maliciously, yes.
Fred
I am glad to have such a clear statement, to disagree with. The purpose of an honest encyclopedia is to take the truth from wherever it appears, and to refer accurately even to the works of those who work against the truth.
If they are malicious, their maliciousness will be apparent when exposed. That's the basic principle of all respectable journalism. to hide the views of one's opponents--even one's bad faith opponents--is censorship. I will defend WP by all intellectually honest means, but hiding the views of those who attack it is not such. It's not even productive--that we think their views dangerous enough to unlink adds to their credibility.
The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing. Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of destroying our credibility.
On 9/21/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:08 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
On 20 Sep 2007 at 21:33:58 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote: [long line rewrapped]
We do not have an exception to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] which permits linking to a personal attack on an external web site.
Which is relevant if you buy into the concept that "everything not explicitly permitted is prohibited."
Anyway, the questions at issue tend to be of the form "Does the above apply in any way to a link, for a purpose unrelated to any attack, to a site that happens to also have attacks in it?"
Depends on the site. If the site is used in a campaign of harassment, maliciously, yes.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21/09/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing. Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of destroying our credibility.
I agree entirely. Let us not forget which road is paved with good intentions.
On 21/09/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Depends on the site. If the site is used in a campaign of harassment, maliciously, yes.
Fred
Maliciousness or lack thereof is irrelevant. (WP certainly attacked DB before DB started outing... other people.) The goal should be to protect people. People can be hurt regardless of the presence or absence of maliciousness.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Depends on the site. If the site is used in a campaign of harassment, maliciously, yes.
Fred
Maliciousness or lack thereof is irrelevant. (WP certainly attacked DB before DB started outing... other people.) The goal should be to protect people. People can be hurt regardless of the presence or absence of maliciousness.
I disagree that our purpose should be to prevent people feeling hurt. Imelda Marcos feels terribly hurt by all the accusations against her and her husband, for example. Ferdinand was really just a savvy investor, you know.
Or you could consider the case of the activist S. Brian Wilson, who was protesting military aid to Nicaragua. A munitions train crew intentionally ran him down, cutting off both of his legs. Navy medical corpsmen at the scene refused to treat him, leaving his medical care to bystanders and the eventual arrival of a public ambulance. He didn't blame them; as a Vietnam vet, he knew they were just following orders. The train crew, however, did blame him, suing him for "humiliation, mental anguish, and physical stress". [1]
Who feels hurt is not a good indicator of actual wrongdoing.
As an organization, we should strive mightily to promote civil discussion, and to swiftly reign in community members who are acting with malice. And as people, we should always strive to comfort the afflicted, regardless of whether their affliction is earned. But we shouldn't mix the two by giving the institution a role in making people feel better.
William
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Brian_Willson#Concord_protest_and_injuries, plus Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion", p216-7
On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Maliciousness or lack thereof is irrelevant. (WP certainly attacked DB before DB started outing... other people.) The goal should be to protect people. People can be hurt regardless of the presence or absence of maliciousness.
[snipped interesting examples]
Who feels hurt is not a good indicator of actual wrongdoing.
'Anything done out of love is beyond good and evil.' - Nietzsche
If you are focusing on who did something wrong, you are missing the point. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, maybe they are not guilty by reason of insanity, maybe they are neither white nor black but grey. But if someone is getting hurt, the person should be protected. Focusing on who needs to be punished will most likely make things worse.
[snip]
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Who feels hurt is not a good indicator of actual wrongdoing.
'Anything done out of love is beyond good and evil.' - Nietzsche
If you are focusing on who did something wrong, you are missing the point. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, maybe they are not guilty by reason of insanity, maybe they are neither white nor black but grey. But if someone is getting hurt, the person should be protected. Focusing on who needs to be punished will most likely make things worse.
Hmmm...
I think we've both made our positions clear, so let's just agree to disagree on this point.
William