On 29 Apr 2007 at 13:42:38 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
There are some editors who have been so viciously attacked that any link to these sites, however innocuous the individual page, feels like a mortal insult. What's on these sites that justifies that pain?
That sounds like a similar mindset to the one that has produced politically-correct speech codes on university campuses; it's the idea that avoiding hurting the feelings of the most sensitive people is more important than allowing the vigorous exercise of free speech.
One thing I've always prided myself about Wikipedia was that it was unafraid to confront its critics head-on [Apply directly to the forehead...]. Rather than cower in fear of anybody who's attacking us, or cultishly try to shield the eyes of the faithful from anything that might disrupt the Wikipedian Worldview (even the Ayn Rand cult is known for trying to suppress heretical views, as when they urged their adherents not to read anything by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden once they were excommunicated), we've normally taken a position that there is much to be gained and little to be lost by being aware of everything being said about us -- from intelligent, thoughtful criticism to intemperate, ridiculous attacks, and everything in between. We can learn from the constructive criticism, rebut the misguided critics, choose to ignore the utterly ridiculous, but in any case, it's a bad idea to try to forcibly suppress any of them; it just makes it seem like we've got something to hide or fear.
On 29 Apr 2007 at 13:42:38 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
There are some editors who have been so viciously attacked that any link to these sites, however innocuous the individual page, feels like a mortal insult. What's on these sites that justifies that pain?
on 4/29/07 9:38 AM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
That sounds like a similar mindset to the one that has produced politically-correct speech codes on university campuses; it's the idea that avoiding hurting the feelings of the most sensitive people is more important than allowing the vigorous exercise of free speech.
One thing I've always prided myself about Wikipedia was that it was unafraid to confront its critics head-on [Apply directly to the forehead...]. Rather than cower in fear of anybody who's attacking us, or cultishly try to shield the eyes of the faithful from anything that might disrupt the Wikipedian Worldview (even the Ayn Rand cult is known for trying to suppress heretical views, as when they urged their adherents not to read anything by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden once they were excommunicated), we've normally taken a position that there is much to be gained and little to be lost by being aware of everything being said about us -- from intelligent, thoughtful criticism to intemperate, ridiculous attacks, and everything in between. We can learn from the constructive criticism, rebut the misguided critics, choose to ignore the utterly ridiculous, but in any case, it's a bad idea to try to forcibly suppress any of them; it just makes it seem like we've got something to hide or fear.
Very, very well said, Dan. Thank you!
Marc Riddell