The Cunctator wrote:
Should any of us declare war on vandals?
Aren't most vandals people who are just being juvenile, and likely if
shown how much fun being a productive contributor to Wikipedia is,
would rather have their edits last, influencing others?
Shouldn't we distinguish between fighting vandalism and fighting
vandals? It's not personal -- it's business. Right?
Isn't declaring war a gross violation of assuming good faith?
Please tell me why "declaring war" on vandals is a good idea.
The more wars you declare, the greater your chances of losing wars.
War on terror, war on crime, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on
vandals. Such an approach as easily encourages what it seeks to
destroy. The Vandals were one of the enemies of the Roman Empire; can
we do as well against them.
In the Nov./Dec.2005 issue of "Adbusters" there is an interesting
quote. "Why, of course, the people don't want war ... That is
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
parliament or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people
can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All
you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same in any country." Herman Goering had a lot to be
retrospective about when he said that in 1946.
Some might get literal about the term country, and argue that Wikipedia
is not a country. But if we are not a country, what the hell are we
doing declaring wars.
Ec