[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blastsWikipedia
Poor, Edmund W
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com
Wed Nov 30 20:20:29 UTC 2005
> I am responding to nobody in particular, because there's such a wide
> variety of hysteria to respond to that I can barely choose.
>
> The objection that Seigenthaler is having to Wikipedia is not
> even to
> the process or to the speed at which we fix vandalism. It is not to
> our current quality, it is not to anything fixable.
>
> The fundamental objection that Seigenthaler has is that we allow
> people to post freely. His objection is to the belief that we ought
> not carefully monitor our users and that we ought avoid turning them
> in to the legal authorities in a dispute. His assumption that the
> article was posted by a vandal is dodgy at best - I would be shocked
> if he were not the subject of some conspiracy theory or another, and
> if whoever posted the article were anything more than a particularly
> stupid POV pusher. If Wikipedia were to in any way assist with
> turning a mere stupid POV pusher in to legal authorities, I know my
> support for the site would drop off swiftly.
>
> The entire goal of this project is freedom and openness. That opens
> us to stupidity, and we have an obligation to deal with the
> stupidity. And if Seigenthaler wanted to criticize us for our
> failings in reverting this stupidity and to the process that let it
> sit there for 153 days, he'd be right. But to criticize us for being
> open and free in the first place is not a problem we can or should
> fix. And to my mind, it is a problem that puts Seigenthaler so far
> outside of any of the core beliefs of this project that the point is
> only narrowly worth debating.
>
> A final comment - we have been adamant and active about finding ways
> for our Chinese contributors to participate even as their government
> tries to shut them down. On what possible grounds can we even
> consider acquiescing to an argument that amounts to "It should be
> easier to sue if I don't like my Wikipedia article." Think of what
> would have happened in the Bogdanov Affair, or with John Byrne, or
> with dozens of other cases if what Seigenthaler were calling
> for were
> to come true.
>
> -Phil
Agree 100% with both points:
1. We should not help people punish stupid or POV-pushing contributors.
2. We should facilitate contributions from (and access by) people
suffering under dictorial regimes which censor "anti-government" POV.
Ed Poor
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list