On 19 Sep 2007 at 15:37:17 +0100, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Are we here to work on the encyclopedia, or not? Very importantly, do we allow naked politics on the site? By that I mean, do we stay with allowing criticism of actions on the site (which has always been permitted), or would it be OK to impute motives and attack those, blacken people's reputations, and so on? If so, exactly what good would come of it?
Better put "proposed merge" templates on [[Nudity]] and [[Politics]]... :-)
People who oppose me in the "BADSITES" debate have been doing quite a bit of imputing of motives, blackening of reputations, and the like, which is ironic coming from the side that's supposedly against personal attacks.
Dan Tobias wrote:
People who oppose me in the "BADSITES" debate have been doing quite a bit of imputing of motives, blackening of reputations, and the like, which is ironic coming from the side that's supposedly against personal attacks.
Dan, it's very simple. Try to keep up.
1. We must do everything possible to protect editors from harm. 2. A BADSITES-like policy would protect editors from harm. 3. Dan Tobias is against BADSITES-like policies. 4. Therefore, squelching Dan Tobias protects editors from harm.
I don't see how you can be against step 4. I guess you're not interested in protecting Wikipedia's editors.
On 19/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Dan Tobias wrote:
People who oppose me in the "BADSITES" debate have been doing quite a bit of imputing of motives, blackening of reputations, and the like, which is ironic coming from the side that's supposedly against personal attacks.
Dan, it's very simple. Try to keep up.
- We must do everything possible to protect editors from harm.
- A BADSITES-like policy would protect editors from harm.
- Dan Tobias is against BADSITES-like policies.
- Therefore, squelching Dan Tobias protects editors from harm.
I don't see how you can be against step 4. I guess you're not interested in protecting Wikipedia's editors.
No, Dan should simply be argued with. Perhaps he will change his mind. Also, he has a point. Just because someone contributes to another attack site (read: user-contributed website) does not mean that person deserves to be called a holocaust denier. Some members of other attack sites (read: user-contributed websites) have complained about being called holocaust deniers by Wikipaedians.
Not to mention Wikipaedia itself frequently and self-righteously attacks people. See Google results on banned users, attempts lasting years by hardly notable people to get their bios deleted from Wikipaedia, etc.
Also, Wikipaedia is not the centre of the universe, or the centre of the world, or even the centre of the internet. There are human beings in the world who are not Wikipaedia editors.
- We must do everything possible to protect editors from harm.
- A BADSITES-like policy would protect editors from harm.
- A. B. is against BADSITES-like policies.
- Therefore, squelching A. B. protects editors from harm.
I don't see how you can be against step 4. I guess you're not interested in protecting Wikipedia's editors.
let's generalize a little:
1. We must do everything possible to protect editors from harm 2. Eliminating all biographical articles about living people would help prevent editors from harm. 3. Some million editors or so want to write such articles 4. Banning them all from WP would protect the remaining editors from harm.
#2 is not theoretical--I saw it proposed yesterday. But perhaps we want something less drastic. Substitute:
2A. Letting all subjects of biographical articles rewrite them to their own satisfaction would decrease the motives for harming editors. 2B. Letting all companies, publications , and web sites rewrite their own articles would further decrease the motives for harming editors 2C. Never saying anything negative about anyone or anything would almost totally remove the motive. 2D. Not inserting references in articles to places where editors are discussed would slightly lower their visibility and thus protect editors. 2E. Not allowing links to web sites that discuss editors would somewhat lower their visibility on search engines and thus protect editors. 2F. Not allowing links to web sites that discuss editors in a way the editors in question think is detrimental would at least partially lower their visibility and thus protect editors.
where along the spectrum do people here stand? I say that
2G. Reporting the world as it is will protect people in the long run by exposing those who would harm editors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.