[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[The Mangoe]

Mr. Gallagher, I see my syntax was slightly ambiguous. Initially I did
believe that the passage was authentic. Consultation with the WR-ites
revealed that they thought it was not. I had them move the thread into
the closed subforum so as to eliminate the (likely mistaken)
allegation out of public view, and I left an apology with SV.

The reason, of course, that personal attacks lead to a "poisonous
editing environment" is because people understand that such attacks
are immoral-- at least when they themselves are the target-- and
therefore have moral reactions against them. Interpersonal behavior on
Wikipedia is still interpersonal behavior in the world at large. I
don't see that assessment of WR is of itself a personal attack, nor is
assessment of Wikipedia on WR necessarily personal attacks on editors,
either generally or in specific cases. Now, the WR-ites have
grievances against specific editors. They are not all that
well-behaved there about it, so what they say is a mixture of credible
and dubious allegations, and pure vitriol. The thing is, all of this
is in the context of the larger discussion of Wikipedia, and people
are going to expect Wikipedia to obey the rules of public discourse in
the large.

Rational discourse forbade personal attacks long before there was a
Wikipedia. We forbid them on Wikipedia because we want rational
discourse. But the problem is, the way things are phrased, we don't
really forbid them as long as the target is external, and therefore,
in that respect rational discourse is impaired. And that's precisely
what is happening. The rationality of the whole "attack sites"
discussion is impaired because one side does keep attacking those
sites in personal terms; and they continue to slip up and attack
editors because some member of that site (such as myself) are editors.
Discussion of those sites should be held to the standards of other
discourse in Wikipedia, especially including citations when claims are
made.