-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 04:41 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 19/10/2007, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Jimmy Wales schreef:
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
They may be a minority, but most of the recent discussion was about borderline cases. The Nielsen Hayden blog, the WikipediaReview Signpost article, the Michael Moore site. Perhaps you don't hink these are borderline, but in each of these cases I've seen people arguing on both sides.
And whether naming antisocialmedia.net in [[Judd Bagley]] should count as a personal attack on the people attacked by that site, even though the site itself is named openly in the NYT etc. as relevant. There was an arbitration case about this.
The problem is the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
- d. _______________________________________________
I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to edit a Wikipedia user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any excess of ours. In a way, linking to it puts him in a false light, displaying petty bullying. Fred
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to edit a Wikipedia user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any excess of ours. In a way, linking to it puts him in a false light, displaying petty bullying.
The NPOV violation here is that in the POV of some of us, harassing, maligning, or exposing Wikipedia editors is a bad thing. More specifically, it is seen as the one bad thing in all the world that might merit link removal. Other people do not share this POV.
Perhaps one could make an NPOV-friendly case for removing all links to all harassment, or maligning, or exposing of anonymous or pseudonymous people. It would be even more clearly consistent with NPOV to argue for a removal of all links to all living miscreants everywhere.
Needless to say, I don't think those are a good idea either. I think our job is to give people the facts as best we can, while leaving the moral judgments to our readers.
William
On 20/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to edit a Wikipedia user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any excess of ours. In a way, linking to it puts him in a false light, displaying petty bullying.
Altering article content for any reason other than for the good of the article content is a violation of NPOV. It's not "Nice To Wikipedia Editors Point Of View."
- d.
Quoting fredbaud@waterwiki.info:
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 04:41 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 19/10/2007, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Jimmy Wales schreef:
The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline cases as an empirical matter.
They may be a minority, but most of the recent discussion was about borderline cases. The Nielsen Hayden blog, the WikipediaReview Signpost article, the Michael Moore site. Perhaps you don't hink these are borderline, but in each of these cases I've seen people arguing on both sides.
And whether naming antisocialmedia.net in [[Judd Bagley]] should count as a personal attack on the people attacked by that site, even though the site itself is named openly in the NYT etc. as relevant. There was an arbitration case about this.
The problem is the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
- d.
I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to edit a Wikipedia user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any excess of ours. In a way, linking to it puts him in a false light, displaying petty bullying. Fred
Huh? How is it a false light? If his website has petty bullying up then he's engaging in petty bullying. There's an inherent difficulty in saying that an article would normally benefit from a link but we aren't going to put it there. That's damaging to the encyclopedia due to an application of some peoples POV. That's almost the definition of not being NPOV.