[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[The Mangoe]

On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> What this debate boils down to is what kind of atmosphere we want on
> Wikipedia. Some people are arguing that we don't want an atmosphere of
> censorship, and that's a valid point of course. My argument is that we
> shouldn't want an atmosphere in which some people are being outed,
> attacked, ridiculed, and having their families and their friend's
> families contacted by lunatics.

I have posted out on the internet under my real name for two decades,
and I've participated in a lot of discussions that were more virulent
than anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. And I've never seen any
real life threats come out of it, though I have been roundly vilified
on occaision. The atmosphere on Wikipedia is better than this, but
only better; it is the same atmosphere, only not as bad. Well, except
for one thing: the need to stand over one's work and protect it from
idiots.

The idiots are out there, all over Wikipedia, and this proposal has
handed them another tool. I don't think the threat of erasure is
protecting anyone from being outed, but it is clear that the threat of
erasure is useful for harassing people or even just stirring up
trouble. And you can say that we don't to worry about that, but it is
not so. We shouldn't write policies which invite idiots to commit
idiocy and the malicious to act with malice, and that is the history
of this proposal's application.

I don't think the proposal is really protecting anyone. Someone who is
that intent on doing real life harassment can get past the erased
links with ease.