On 8/3/08, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 8/3/2008 6:09:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com writes:
As I understand your position, it is that as a matter of principle,
petty disputes among Wikipedia contributors (many of whom edit under their
real names), as well as negative remarks about subjects of deleted articles
and the like, should not only be preserved on Wikipedia itself, but they
must remain readily available as top Google hits for the people
in question, presumably in perpetuity. This position is not defensible.>>
-----------------
It's then a good thing I suppose that this isn't my position.
My position is that we already have internal mechanisms to handle the
objections you first broached.
We're not babysitters and we shouldn't act like cyber cops. If
people call
each other hateful names, that's what they did. The entire blame
for their
actions rests solely on their own shoulders. I feel no responsibility for
what someone else did, and that they did it, knowing full well that others
would
and have seen it. That is the very nature of a public forum.
If a particular instance can be shown to require oversight, than it should,
and has. That we should make a sweeping change for a few minor issues is
vast overkill and in the light that there are other options.
Will Johnson
In the first place, not every instance in which indexed results reflect
adversely on an individual are that individual's fault, directly or
indirectly. In the second place, in the absence of truly extraordinary
circumstances, no one's off-wiki life should be allowed to be adversely
affected by his or her editing on Wikipedia if we can help it. In the third
place, not everyone affected by this issue is a Wikipedian at all.
I also do not understand your apparent suggestion that there is no place on
a continuum between publishing the details of all our onsite quarrels
broadcast to the world, and actually oversighting the edits from the
database (a step which truly does suppress edits from later scrutiny if it
is needed, albeit for good and necessary reasons when appropriately use).
The fact that pages such as XfD, RfA, RfAr, and BLP/N went to no-index some
time ago with apparently little notice or complaint suggests that your
objections to this practice are more theoretical than real. I am sensitive
to the value of such principle-based objections, but not when the objections
are, in the opinion of most participants in the discussion, so thoroughly
outweighed by the benefits of the measure proposed. I repeat the urging in
my prior post that at least the pages I listed there (DRV, AN/ANI/AN3, SSP,
RfCU, WQA, former CSN and PAIN, and their archives) be added to the
no-indexing protocol if this has not already been done.
A post the other day reminded me of our earlier encounter in the context of
a controversial deletion discussion last year. Between that discussion and
this one, I am gaining the impression that you disdain any consideration
of the real-life consequences of Wikipedia coverage on living people who
might be affected by them, whether they be article subjects or our own
contributors. I hope that is not the case.
Newyorkbrad