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

[Anthony]

On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/2/07, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:> >
> > > > > If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
> > > >
> > > > If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about
> > > > SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on
> > > > Wikipedia about it.
> > >
> > > Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it?  Why would you
> > > expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the
> > > absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
> >
> >
> > If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least
> > expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly being
> > some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this silly
> > thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly, with
> > at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from the
> > talk page without a trace,
>
> If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you
> imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this
> about you being a pedophile"?
>
That's not the proper question.  The proper question would be, if
Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a secret agent, do you
imagine you respond civilly to question of "John, what's all this
about you being a secret agent"?

If slashdot ran an article saying that I was really [name redacted], a
journalist and secret agent who infiltrated Wikipedia, I don't think
I'd get upset.  Hopefully I'd even do something witty like put
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SV-in-black.png up on my user page.