-----Original Message----- From: David Goodman [mailto:dgoodmanny@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:54 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
Fred, at the arb com you proposed:
"Discussion of an allegation derived from an external attack site engaged in harassment is unacceptable. If there is truth, the matter will, in due course, be raised by other witnesses. "
The problem, of course, is that under the policy you are advocating, any such witness will in fact been classified by some as an attack site. If the encyclopedia isn't neutral, even with respect to our own people, it isn't worth the protecting, and we join the attack sites as non-neutral biased sources.
Resolution of this question depends on appreciation of harassment. In the case being considered, the person behind Wordbomb, a banned user has carried on a campaign for about 2 years, both on Wikipedia Review and on his own website attacking and attempting to identify a Wikipedia user. A number of fantastic allegations have been raised by the banned user during the course of his campaign. Incidents which happened years ago are repeatedly brought up as though they were new revelations, despite having been previously been investigated and resolved. Any scrap of stale information which might attract attention is advanced.
It is wise not to respond to such a campaign, even if it should though the shotgun method employed, manage to get a few strands of spaghetti to stick to the wall. It is the campaign of harassment which results in the site being classified as an attack site, not particular information.
Fred
Hi, Fred.
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Incidents which happened years ago are repeatedly brought up as though they were new revelations, despite having been previously been investigated and resolved. Any scrap of stale information which might attract attention is advanced.
I agree that's a real problem, but I disagree that banning discussion is the solution.
For everybody else's problems in the world, Wikipedia believes that the best solution is more information, not less. We believe that clear, neutrally stated factual information is the antidote to pretty much any sort of idiocy. Or at least that censorship won't help.
Are you a conservative Christian who doesn't want your kids to find out about sex? Tough, we say. A holocaust survivor who believes that the holocaust deniers should never be mentioned again? Too bad. A suicide hotline worker who thinks that giving people more information on the topic is resulting in actual deaths? We might care, but we won't stop publishing.
Our one proved skill is to dig into things and come to relatively neutral, factual understandings. As an admin, if I have been accused of malfeasance, what I want is for people to dig into it fairly, publicly, and in detail. Then, when somebody brings up the tired old accusation, I can point them to the independent investigation. Case closed.
The last thing I would want is for all discussion to be banned. At best, that leaves people with lingering suspicions. At worst, the belief that if it's being covered up, there must be something there. And by not providing closure, it guarantees that things will come up again and again.
We should fight false accusations with truth, not censorship. By acting like a false accusation is a terrible, horrible thing, we conspire to make it shameful. Instead, we should be conspiring to make it a non-event.
William
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
We should fight false accusations with truth, not censorship. By acting like a false accusation is a terrible, horrible thing, we conspire to make it shameful. Instead, we should be conspiring to make it a non-event.
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
Your argument reminds me of a debate about whether or not the names of rape victims should be published in the news. On the one hand, it was acknowledged that publishing their names made them vulnerable to further harm and abuse. On the other hand, some believed that not naming the victims stigmatised them, implying that the victims must have done something wrong to need to be protected and preventing the public from empathising with them.
You can read about it here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_199904/ai_n8831490
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
We should fight false accusations with truth, not censorship. By acting like a false accusation is a terrible, horrible thing, we conspire to make it shameful. Instead, we should be conspiring to make it a non-event.
Your argument reminds me of a debate about whether or not the names of rape victims should be published in the news. [...]
You can read about it here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_199904/ai_n8831490
Interesting article. Their broad point seems to be that their study shows neither positive or negative changes in attitude from strangers to the victims of rape based on leaving names in or out of news reports. And that since rape victims generally don't like being named, the choice should generally be to leave the name out. That seems sensible to me.
I think our circumstances here are different in that we are an intentional community of people choosing to work on a high-profile public project. In our case, the question is much trickier. When some random person on the street is assaulted, their identity is irrelevant to reasonable public interest. The BADSITES cases, though, seem to all center around accusations of malfeasance and the legitimacy of discussing those accusations.
A better real-world analogy is probably how we handle it when criminals accuse cops of bad behavior. A lot of those accusations are sure to be false. Some are sure to be true. Who do you favor?
The BADSITES approach seems to be equivalent to what you see in [[The Thin Blue Line (documentary)]] in that it favors solidarity with the in-group over investigation of complaints from known or suspected miscreants.
Personally, I'm more of the "sunshine is the best disinfectant" approach.
William
On 20/09/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
A better real-world analogy is probably how we handle it when criminals accuse cops of bad behavior. A lot of those accusations are sure to be false. Some are sure to be true. Who do you favor?
A sans-names approach. Publish the criticism, if private dispute resolution fails, just try to leave out identifying details, at least when speaking publicly. I realise problems could arise from this, e.g. if the criticism inherently makes it obvious who is being talked about, but hey, there's only so much you can do.
The BADSITES approach seems to be equivalent to what you see in [[The Thin Blue Line (documentary)]] in that it favors solidarity with the in-group over investigation of complaints from known or suspected miscreants.
Note that there is a difference between private investigation and public investigation. Now, many of these critics are alienated from WP, and no one will listen to them, meaning the first has already failed... unless the ArbCom is willing to start hearing their complaints privately. I doubt that would work given current tensions, but perhaps things will change one day. However, note the lack of private options available for everyone - that perhaps should change.
Publicly, I support a generic, sans-names approach - discuss the issues generically. Of course, this excludes evidence, which can and does upset some people.
Personally, I'm more of the "sunshine is the best disinfectant" approach.
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
I don't really think it works, but I see where you're coming from.
Thing is, even if it would be better if the people being attacked were able to handle it and respond, they often aren't, and I won't push them. I'd be a total hypocrite if I did - I can't handle it either. Now, getting people to speak for them as representatives might be more feasible. I'd be quite happy if people attacked by websites that are known to remove things upon request could ask a representative to ask for the material to be removed.