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.