[WikiEN-l] A request from H. Jonat

[james duffy]

>james duffy wrote:
> > I agree. People need to be able to discuss matters openly and frankly. 
>It
> > really is nobody else's business but the people on the mailing list what 
>is
> > said on that list.
>
>Well, I don't agree at all.  Wikipedia is a transparent public
>project, what we do is all out in the open for anyone to see.
>
>Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
>
This argument reflects an ongoing debate in political science over 
tranparency versus confidentiality in public office decision taking. Keeping 
of records and access to them is vital. To too much ''immediate'' access 
tends to lead to (a) people not being able to be open in a discussion 
without their words coming back to haunt them or being used outside 
wikipedia against them (if they were called on the list a rascist, a bigot, 
a homophobe, anti-semite, anti-catholic, any-woman, anti whatever) (b) 
playing to the gallery, ie., phoney positions being taken up simply for the 
impression they give if anyone does a google search on someone.

Most organisations provide a space where full records are kept of 
discussions, debates, etc but where that information is not instantly 
available, providing a degree of confidentiality that allows things to be 
discussed fully and frankly without the worry that someone doing a google 
search discovering that 'x' was accused of such and such. I know I wanted to 
send a sensitive message to someone on wiki, but couldn't email them as they 
have no email account listed.

I would hate to think, for example, that if Mav ever ran for public office, 
an opponent could do a google search under Mav's name, find that someone on 
the list in the heat of an argument once accused him of anti-semitism (and 
that is a ficticious example!) and use such a suggestion against him. I 
myself was accused of being like a holocaust denier here once. Luckily this 
email account doesn't give my real name, but if it did, that wild accusation 
could show up against me in a google search if for example in next year's 
Irish local elections I agreed to run for office as I have been asked. Or if 
ran in the next Irish general election in 2007. If there was the slightest 
chance that that wild claim or others could be found if someone did a google 
search under my real name, I would be gone from the list (and probably from 
wikipedia) like a shot.

Communication on this list should only be available (a) through a carefully 
restricted means (eg, through being a contributor to wikipedia), not simply 
through a google search, and (b) perhaps with some time delay mechanism. 
There is, for example, a US Democratic Party political consultant called 
James Duffy, a soccer manager called James Duffy and a number of others. 
What happens if someone does a google search, finds attacks made on me under 
the name of this email account and presumes it was some other 'James Duffy', 
one with a public profile. That is why organisations 'always' provide 
restricted access to discussions such as those here, usually with a time 
delay mechanism. They universally find that unrestricted access blocks free 
discussion  and prevents, not encourages, free speech.

JT

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus