Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 11/9/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
[snip]
legality of the activity, and it is not our place
to start making
judgements about legality. Civil rights and free speech are important,
and if it means having to tolerate occasional idiotic speech that's a
very small price to pay.
We're past due for another line in WP:NOT:
Wikipedia is not an anonymity service.
I don't think that that is a place where such a rule would help.
Generally we work to increase the privacy of editors
because it is the
ethical thing to do and it furthers our interests.
When someone attacks our users with frightening threats of violence or
otherwise behaves in ways which are obviously harmful and malicious we
should disclose their information as appropriate for the protection of
our users and the betterment of our community... and this is for the
same reasons as the above: it is the ethical thing to do and it
furthers our interests.
We are under no obligation to provide protection to people who wish to
cause harm to others.
We don't really disagree. It's all a matter of perspective. The
primary rule should remain that we respect the privacy and anonymity of
the user. Anything that deviates from that is an exception. Exceptions
should be very specific. Rules should derive from ethics, but the two
are not the same thing.
Although a certain degree of "thick skin" is
required for us to avoid
wasting time on every idiotic troll, this would appear to go far
beyond the line.
Those with thin skins just don't last lang.
Ec