[WikiEN-l] WR's secret forum and list

[Anthony]

On Dec 11, 2007 3:08 PM, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2007 2:59 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How can Wikipedia respond?
>
> As it happens, Kelly Martin outlines exactly how one does this (and
> otherwise successfully create an anti-stalking policy environment) in
> a blog post that went up in the last couple hours.
>
> Relevant excerpt:
>
> "Had the Foundation formally notified a stalker that he or she was
> denied permission to access Wikipedia, the Foundation could then press
> charges for computer trespass against the stalker when he or she
> subsequently accessed the site. Such charges would give the
> authorities leverage to put the perp away; proving that case is far
> easier than proving the much harder stalking or harassment case --
> especially when the victim refuses to personally identify himself or
> herself to authorities."
>
Damn straight.  Wikipedia's arb com circus courts are more harm than
good.  An enforcible ban needs to come from the board or an agent of
the foundation, not Jimbo, and not the arb com (at least, not unless
Jimbo and/or arb com are named in a resolution as an agent of the
foundation).  Until that is done, a ban isn't a real world event, it's
just a play in the Wikipedia MMORPG.

We're talking about a website with about as many visitors as Myspace.
Imagine if Myspace had a bunch of volunteers deciding how to handle
stalkers and other criminals who use its website.  Imagine the CEO of
Myspace was talking about the problem with some of these volunteers on
a "private" Wikia mailing list.  Imagine if Myspace had volunteer
sleuths ban people based on evidence that they refused to reveal.
Imagine if Myspace had public trials published on their website
whenever they wanted to ban someone.  Wikipedia needs to grow up.