On 6/27/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Morality is not a rationale of mine. The point is Essjay is not a notable individual to the point that consensus established that there shouldn't be an article on him.
And there isn't. But there IS an article on the incident, and his real identity is not only germane, but indeed crucial to the matter. I suppose you could take out the phrase "R*** J*****", and anyone with enough fingers to type "Essjay" into Google would get past that omission.
Also it is a beefed up slanderous article on an individual. Since Essjay isn't a public figure this (the article) borderlines harassment of an individual. I am not exactly certain of the legal ground on this but Floridan law may have issues with this which puts the foundation at a legal risk. This aspect should also be investigated.
Nonsense. I haven't checked every last detail of the article, mind you; but the basic outline of the story-- the misrepresentation, the interview, the Wikia account, the questions, the revelation, the departure, the note on the interview-- these are simple, uncontested truth. And it was all conducted in public, so there isn't the slightest possibility of a privacy angle on it.
When you call it "harassment", you ARE dealing in morality. You are saying that we, as an institution, have to express forgiveness for this person by erasing the record of his wrongdoing (or what many, maybe a majority, would view as wrongdoing). I just don't see the obligation. He did something conspicuously unethical, carelessly sowed the seeds of getting caught, and got caught. All the media that have paid any attention to Wikipedia took notice, because what he did cast doubt upon the whole proceeding. I don't see that we have to protect him from the consequences of his actions, but I also don't think we CAN protect him. The truth is out there, and it isn't going to be hidden just because we erase an article.