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.
I would have to wonder, what would have prompted the police to visit
these editors? If we're talking about Phil Sandifer's graphic web
posting, I personally think that *some* degree of concern was
appropriate (and none of that was related to Wikipedia in the first
place, rather, an off-site blog and a concerned person who read the
blog). If we're talking about something else, then I'm not at all aware
of the situation.
If a person is having difficulty with their employer due to their
involvement in Wikipedia, one would have to wonder what prompted their
employer to be concerned about their involvement? Was the editor
contributing while on the clock, was there some form of
conflict-of-interest, or did the editor actively post libelous
statements themselves?
I'll admit I haven't heard of any cases where a person was turned down
for a job because of being identified as a Wikipedia editor, and if I
understood more about this, I might be inclined to agree.
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
Harassment is illegal. In most areas, at least so far as I am aware, and
here in the states, libel is simply a tort. That doesn't make it right,
but it's not necessarily *criminal*. I do approve of not linking to such
cases of harassment and libel, and even removing such links in cases
were they are not helpful to discussion or relevant to an article. I
don't approve of blanket bans on sites that have published information
that could be deemed to be harassing or libelous, *especially* if that
site has become notable.