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

[Anthony]

On 8/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The allegations are far more outrageous and extensive than that;
> that's why the pedophile question is indeed apt.
>
No, the pedophile question is not at all apt.  I've read the slashdot
article, and I've read the article which the slashdot article linked
to, and there was nothing approaching pedophilia (or rape, for that
matter) in either of them.  I also read at least some of the questions
deleted from Sarah's talk page, and none of them involved something as
outrageous as "John, what's all this about you being a pedophile".