[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider

[Blu Aardvark]

Those who are being libeled and attacked have legal recourse. Daniel 
Brandt isn't hiding behind anonymity, and I'm fairly certain that 
Wikipedia Review would cooperate fully in any legal proceedings against 
any of it's members - that is, assuming that anyone has a legitimate 
case, which I doubt.

As for those who are suffering other adverse effects, I hold that much 
of that is their own doing. It's unlikely that a user would face 
employment problems because of their Wikipedia involvement being "outed" 
unless they were a) posting libel (ie, Brian Chase) b) editing while 
on-the-clock, or c) had an active conflict of interest (ie, Katefan0).


doc wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:>
>   
>> Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or
>> at risk of attacks.  This is a fact of life.
>>     
>
> Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and 
> attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run. 
> A fact of life 9for them)?
>
>   
>> After all the intensive efforts to set and maintain and enforce BLP
>> policies, no outsider can reasonably claim we aren't trying.
>>     
>
> Sorry, but that's crap. Our 'solutions' are utterly unrealistic.
>
>   
>> No insider is going to claim we're succeeding perfectly, either.
>>
>> We can't be perfect.  To attain our project's goals, we have to
>> balance technology, people's time, and policies.  Lacking "approved
>> version" code, we're doing a pretty good approximation of optimally
>> given what our project stands for and the resource constraints.
>>
>>     
> Do we also have to balance the harm done to bystanders? Or does 
> collateral damage not feature in the accounting analysis?
>
> Doc
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>