[WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

[Michael Noda]

On 8/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
> > And characterising it as "appeasement" just further polarises the
> > situation. The fact that someone we don't like would be pleased (or
> > smug, perhaps more accurately) does not stop the fact that the project
> > would be better off for it. I am not calling for this because it's
> > what Wikipedia Review demand - I don't know what Wikipedia Review
> > want, to be frank. I am calling for this because I'm sick of it, and I
> > feel strongly that others are too.
> >
> Where do you think all this drama is coming from in the first place? The
> lunatics at WR have been trying to get wider attention for their
> conspiracy theories for several years. So you're unwittingly playing
> into their hands, and in fact, your "please leave" message is already
> reproduced at WR as the start of a new discussion thread.
>
> Now it would be good if we had better ways to tamp down the drama once
> it gets started. But asking valuable editors to quit in response to
> outsiders going after them is completely the wrong way to go about it -
> you may not like the word "appeasement", but what else would you call
> it? You're giving the attackers what they want, at the expense of the
> victims. Now that you're featured on WR, you're going to be under
> scrutiny yourself - are you willing to quit and abandon all your WP work
> when they start attacking you? And no, coming back under another name
> won't help, they are always ready to make sockpuppet accusations.
>
> You really should go take a look at WR, and see the malevolence for
> yourself.

Well, unlike Andrew, I've actually gone over and looked at the cesspit
that is WR a few times (yes, it has members with redeeming value, it's
still a cesspit.)  I know what the WRites tend to want, and I know I
have no inclination whatsoever to appease them or to let them dictate
our actions.  But that also includes not being afraid to do things
that will make them happy in the short term.  The Right Thing is still
the Right Thing, even if the Wrong People are applauding.

You see, the WR people have come after us before, and they will come
after us into the foreseeable future.  Nothing we can do to change
that.  But that's the entire point.  They've gone after other people
before.  Jimbo, Angela, Mindspillage, Raul654, Linuxbeak, David
Gerard, Cyde Weys.  With a few notable exceptions (like their driving
Katefan0 off the project, or calling the cops on Phil Sandifer), we
*do* ignore the mountains of crap they generate; we only respond when
clear lines of behavior have been crossed.  We didn't start
eradicating links or redacting mentions on behalf of any of those
editors; were they somehow less worthy of protection?  No, what is
different about this mess is the inability of certain participants in
the fracas to leave well enough alone.

When the siege mentality has set in, that's the point at which an
editor needs to take a rest, for the good of the project.