On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
From: The
Cunctator
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
A common example is that while you have a right
to freedom
of speech,
you don't have the right to shout
"Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
If something on a userpage cause disruption and offence, then it
should be removed.
The reason you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema is not
because it causes disruption and offense, but because it
could cause a panicked stampede, leading to real physical harm.
IOW, disruption and offence.
Um, no. Disruption and offense are not the same thing as battery and
manslaughter. Try to understand the difference.
Which
doesn't apply to Wikipedia.
We should browbeat and harass people rather than physically smack them over
the head?
Huh?
People are
entirely too touchy here.
After all we are a community, and sometimes small
individual freedoms
get sacrificed for the common good.
Which, history tells us, is rarely for the common good in the
long run.
If we let the community decide what is best for it, so long as the ultimate
goal of writing an encyclopaedia remains foremost, then surely we will find
the common good?
Not necessarily. Again, history doesn't support that thesis.
Wikipedia is not an iron-fisted dictatorship under the
heavy hand of Jimbo,
nor is it a theocracy under the all-seeing gaze of the ArbCom. Usually the
community sorts things out at street corner level and it is only the problem
cases that come to the attention of admins, the ArbCom and as a last resort,
Jimbo.
Personally, I'd prefer to see a lot more common sense and a lot fewer rules,
but I suspect that common sense doesn't scale, judging by the way things are
going here.
I essentially agree with the above.