On Nov 30, 2007 6:32 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, George Herbert wrote:
I think we do need to have and protect people
willing to whistleblow on
actual malfeasance should it happen. But that's not even remotely what
happened here. The only goal served by Giano's actions was drama and
disruption.
Giano posting the message served the goal of exposing a systematic
problem.
Certainly exposing problems that people would rather not have exposed can
cause
drama and disruption, but as I've pointed out, that's the fault of the
person whose bad behavior is being exposed, not the fault of the person
doing
the exposing.
A.
The systematic problem in question is, as far as I can tell, hypothetical.
I can posit that Giano wouldn't have known that at the time, but we know
better now.
The information available at the time was arguably ambiguous, but did not
factually clearly point to malfeasance.
Whistleblowing when you factually know enough to conclude with certainty
that there is malfeasance is one thing. Whistleblowing when you have a bit
of information and a supposition is quite another. Giano might have thought
there was clearly something wrong; he was incorrect in doing so if that's
what he thought. He should not have concluded with enough certainty to
justify "blowing it wide open" by posting it on WP.
If you make a false conclusion based on partial information, and act
incorrectly based on that false conclusion, you are responsible for your
misdeeds.
B.
If one breaks the law or local rules in whistleblowing, few jurisdictions
include a "get out of jail free" card along with it. Even if I
hypothetically were to agree that this was legitimate whistleblowing and not
excess drama, Giano still repeatedly did something against Wikipedia rules,
after being told by office people not to.
I think Giano was trying to do what he thought was the right thing. But his
zeal and outrage outpaced the actual facts, and led him to commit
unjustified excesses.
Blowing off repeated office warnings has to have consequences.
I am sympathetic to those who want to shine the light of day around a bit
and make sure there aren't any skeletons hidden in the formerly private
closets. That doesn't excuse abuses of WP policy in the process of taking
the look around.
I hope and expect that a polite, good-faith assuming inquiry that didn't
push buttons or violate policies would have gotten as open and honest a
disclosure from participants about what happened here. That's not what
happened. I don't want to hold Giano responsible for the dramatic but not
glaringly policy-breaking excesses of others, but I do think he has to take
his lumps for what he himself did.
I hope he comes back afterwards. He is, though trying at times, a good
participant in the project. But good people goof. And some good people
don't always play well with others.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com