[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia privacy concerns

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 4/14/07, Blu Aardvark <jewbowales at wikipedia-lol.cjb.net> wrote:
>
> Denny Colt wrote:
> > Every single link from Wikipedia back to hate sites that out editors if
> left
> > on-Wikipedia increases exposure and damage to the Wikipedians in
> question.
> > Why do we need a link that leads in 1-2 clicks to 'outed' personal
> > information to keep tabs on anything? That is what bookmarks are for.
> >
> > There is no difference between posting on Wikipedia "Mgm is actually
> > Caroline Smith from Yorkshire, England, employed the Guardian Newspaper"
> or
> > "Mgm is actually Bob Jones from Las Vegas, Nevada, employed by the
> United
> > States Postal service" and linking back to a Website that says the exact
> > same thing. Both are equally damaging on-wiki to Mgm.
> >
> > Opponents of protecting Wikipedians even had the very nerve to say that
> > being personally outed was at best an "nconvenience."
> >
> > Denny
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> May I point out an interesting double-standard here? Most Wikipedians
> believes that publishing personal information is harmful (I agree with
> them for the most part, by the way). Why, then, are there no qualms
> about Wikipedia editors publishing personal information of those that
> have fallen from favor?
>
> Wikipedia currently has several pages which contain my real name, city
> of residence, and phone number (granted, I initially supplied these
> myself, but the point stands). Wikipedia contains virulent personal
> attacks alleging that I am a neo-Nazi/anti-Semite/Nazi
> sympathizer/holocaust denier - attacks that still remain on Wikipedia's
> servers. This all has been copied to numerous websites all over the
> internet as Wikipedia's content is scraped and spammed by anyone looking
> to make a few quick advertising bucks, and I have actually received
> telephone calls from people who got my number from Wikipedia. Yet that
> information is not removed - or when it is, it is re-instated. (I'll
> admit all this pissed me off at first, but I've found I don't really
> care anymore).
>
> So let's get this straight - we're proposing a Wikipedia policy to ban
> all links to any website which might have a page identifying a Wikipedia
> editor, and yet Wikipedia editors not only publish personal information
> on their own servers, they ensure that that information stays in place,
> and they allow it to be copied by any fuckwad hoping to get some cheap
> content on the internet that they can use to hopefully turn a profit on.
>
> The "damage" of exposure is overrated, by the way. Now, true, it does
> give irate people an actual IRL target that they could harass, but most
> trolls won't go that far, because it could lead to actual real-life
> repercussions for themselves. It's also argued that it could cause
> certain editors problems with their employer, but let's be blunt - if a
> person is an a position that they could stand to lose their job by
> editing Wikipedia, they have no business editing Wikipedia. There are
> possibly other arguments for the horrible "damage", but I can't think of
> any common ones at the moment.
>
> I believe that "outing" Wikipedia administrators may be seen as
> harassment toward those editors, but I do not agree that it can really
> be seen as a major threat. I agree that it has no place on Wikipedia,
> and current policy already states that. Blowing things out of proportion
> gives trolls even more food than they get from Wikipedia in the first
> place (and believe me, I know).
>
> I personally believe that [[WP:BADSITES]] is unneeded. Current policy
> already allows for reverting and blocking editors who post personal
> information or links to such information. The proposed policy seeks to
> ban all links to any site that has published the personal information of
> Wikipedians, but I'll admit that I find the proposal quite silly. There
> are occasions on which such links are not only beneficial to
> discussions, but also necessary (in the proper citing of resources, for
> example, or in relevant articles such as the one on Wikitruth). An
> outright ban on them would amount to nothing more than blatant censorship.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

There have been people who had visits from the police or got passed on
promotions, fired or failed to get a job in the first place because of
harrasment. I don't call that overrated. It has real world repercussions,
but the harrassers hardly ever get caught.

About that last line: Would blatantly censoring harrasment be a bad thing?
We are already censoring illegal activities. It may be hard to prove, but
harrasment/libel is just as illegal especially if it has effects on the
harrased person.

Mgm