[WikiEN-l] Please stop this Re: The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?)

[ElinorD]

On 8/2/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As for limiting the damage: what people have been trying to tell you
> -- and what some people just don't seem to get -- is that the measures
> being taken *aren't* limiting the damage.  For one, the outing itself
> is already done; the worms can't be stuffed back into the can.
>

Kirill, you're quite right that the damage can't be undone. Whether or not
Sarah is the person that Brandt believes her to be, removing a message from
her talk page at this stage won't prevent people from finding out that
Brandt believes her to be this person. (Or if it does, in a few cases, it
also causes other people to find out, as removing posts can draw more
attention to them. So we lose and gain at the same time.)

But something very important has been overlooked: preventing people from
seeing who Brandt thinks Sarah is is not the only possible motive for
removing those posts. Another reason is the strong likelihood that she
doesn't want those posts. How do we know that? Well, common sense, to start
off with, and then the fact that before the recent increase in attacks on
her privacy she had frequently argued in favour of removing links to sites
that out people, and finally, the fact that some of the people removing the
posts are known to be friendly with her, and might have a better
understanding of her feelings than those who have criticised the removal of
the posts.

It's not possible to hush up this rumour, but it should be possible to
create an environment where contributors who have given a lot to Wikipedia
and have been harassed as a result can feel that they have the support of
the community. Creating such an environment is good for Wikipedia, but I
sometimes feel that's overlooked. As one of the MONGO rulings said,
"Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under
attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting
harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking
other appropriate action."

Allowing people to indulge in a long discussion on Wikipedia as to whether
or not Sarah really is a spy and whether or not she really is the person
Brandt believes her to be creates an environment where stalking victims who
have contributed a lot feel vulnerable and betrayed. That's not good for the
project. As you yourself endorsed in the Abu badali arbcom case, "the
feelings of other users matter". Sarah's feelings matter.

Some people have suggested that it's not possible to make things worse by
posting about it. I scalded my hand once, and for some time afterwards, it
hurt more when I sat near the fire or when I washed in warm water. Touching
a wound can make it worse. We don't say, "Oh, this person is wounded anyway,
so there's no reason to take any special care. Let's poke to our hearts'
content." At least, if we're kind, we don't.

Does all this "suppression" make Wikipedia look bad or ridiculous? If
handled properly, it shouldn't. It should be possible to remove threads
calmly, stating that Wikipedia has a policy of not engaging in, encouraging,
or promoting speculation about the identities of anonymous contributors, and
another policy of removing any poorly sourced material that might affect a
person in real life. And that article, frankly, is a not a credit to
journalism. The fact is, we remove material all the time, because of OTRS
complaints, or because we see that it could affect people. Think of Jimbo's
courtesy blanking of the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom page. Think of the deletion
of the Daniel Brandt discussion page.

I've been very impressed with some of the things written by arbitrators, and
especially by you, Kirill, when it comes to the respect we should have for
the feelings of people who might be affected by material on Wikipedia. There
were some amazingly sensitive and wise rulings in the Badlydrawnjeff case,
particularly "Basic human dignity" and "Do no harm", and I think they were
drafted by you. But you never said, "Unless, of course, the person affected
happens to be a Wikipedia editor."

As Jimbo said, "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICE#Intent

Elinor