[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[fredbaud at waterwiki.info]

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony [mailto:wikimail at inbox.org]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 07:54 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

On 10/12/07, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> So what should our reaction be to someone who intends harm to our project and our
> volunteers? And has made an avocation of it.
>
It certainly shouldn't be to ban all discussion regarding it.  It
shouldn't be to depict him as "a complete nutter".

If his intention of harm lies outside the law, sue him.  If not, it
really depends on how specifically the person intends to harm the
project and volunteers.

In the case of trying to support administrators in being anonymous,
I'm not sure that's a positive goal in the first place, and seems to
be impossible anyway.

_______________________________________________

First, I don't call Brandt names (Don't bother to search for some instance where I did, if I did, I was out of line). I don't comment on the accuracy of the information he as gathered (Again, if I did, I was out of line). It seems to me that we are having a discussion here. Not all wrongs are legally actionable, thank God for that. Litigation is often, in itself, a great wrong, even when there is sufficient precedent and evidence that it wouldn't be immediately thrown out. And the outcome of litigation is often unpredictable, particularly if novel issues or theories are advanced. Certainly any litigation regarding this dispute would involve such novelty. Regarding Brandt's intent, that must be inferred from his actions, which are public.

I have commented in another post about anonymity. It is a problematic policy, but I'm not sure we are ready to re-examine it. Anonymity presents very difficult problems as more and more public and private entities and individuals attempt to influence our content. Possibly problems fatal to our integrity in the long run.

Fred