[WikiEN-l] We're growing up (was [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again)

[Tony Sidaway]

On 6/14/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 6/14/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  The
> >> main motivation for retaining the article for all this time seems to
> >> me to have been spite.

[some very mature and considered responses deleted for the sake of space]

I concede much of that.  The feeling that Brandt has, or might be seen
to have, achieved an end by means of threats, doesn't persuade me but
might persuade others.

My own feeling that someone as obscure as Brandt could rightly feel
harassed by the presence of an article about him is persuasive to me,
but may be tempered by other considerations in the minds of other
people of good faith.

And so on.

But there is an element of spite, and digging in of heels.  I think
that's why this proposed solution is being endorsed by so many people.
We're all flocking to say "the information may be valiable and should
sink of swim on its merits, but the history of this individual is not
important" because we feel, instinctively, that this is a controversy
that has harmed us as a community and as people.  "Do no harm" cuts
both ways.

And that point, having been reached, Utterly and irrevocably changes
the rules for WIkipedia.  Strict proceduralism is a busted flush, too
rigid ever to be workable.  Elements of the real world enter slowly
but surely into the formerly insulated world of Wikipedia: real living
people don't like rubbish being written about them, obscure real
living people who are involved in a nine day wonder or silly season
story don't get memorialized.  Victims of internet memes aren't to be
victimized further here.

This is a big change, and I'm not surprised that many people are
disquieted by it.  We're growing up, ladies and gentlemen. We're
growing up.