The Cunctator wrote:
Should any of us declare war on vandals?
Aren't most vandals people who are just being juvenile, and likely if shown how much fun being a productive contributor to Wikipedia is, would rather have their edits last, influencing others?
Shouldn't we distinguish between fighting vandalism and fighting vandals? It's not personal -- it's business. Right?
Isn't declaring war a gross violation of assuming good faith?
Please tell me why "declaring war" on vandals is a good idea.
The more wars you declare, the greater your chances of losing wars.
War on terror, war on crime, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on vandals. Such an approach as easily encourages what it seeks to destroy. The Vandals were one of the enemies of the Roman Empire; can we do as well against them.
In the Nov./Dec.2005 issue of "Adbusters" there is an interesting quote. "Why, of course, the people don't want war ... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Herman Goering had a lot to be retrospective about when he said that in 1946.
Some might get literal about the term country, and argue that Wikipedia is not a country. But if we are not a country, what the hell are we doing declaring wars.
Ec