[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[John Lee]

On 10/14/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> However, a victim of a stalker is not the equivalent of a stalker.
>
> If someone is using Wikipedia as their medium for harrassing an
> Wikipedia editor, that doesn't make the Wikipedia editor who is being
> harrassed complicit in their victimhood and equally guilty of abusing
> Wikipedia.


One person is trying to insert a link into an article. Another person is
trying to remove that link. We should not care which one is a longstanding
editor; the important thing is what benefits the encyclopaedia. Sometimes a
link to the harasser's site serves a purpose (michaelmoore.com), and
sometimes it does not. It's impossible to draw a single line here. Those who
are harassed have a conflict of interest because they often do not want to
see a personal attack on them linked to, but this is a factor that should
not be considered over benefit to the encyclopaedia.

In short: do what benefits the encyclopaedia. If it does not matter whether
the link is there or not, then obviously we side with the harassed editor,
but otherwise, we cannot let personal wishes dictate the content of
Wikipedia.

To say say that because you're being stalked by another person who
> found you on Wikipedia gives you, the victim, a conflict of interest
> in Wikipedia empowers the stalker to the point of the ridiculous--it
> will make Wikipedia the favorite place in the known universe of
> stalkers everywhere to be granted their every dream: entangling the
> victim hopelessly without recourse and with plenty of blame in their
> lives.  Do you realize that a stalker doesn't even have to know their
> victim's name to begin stalking them?  Stalking takes place first in
> the mind of the stalker.


Since when was it an insult to point out that people have strong opinions
about the malignment of their character?

Stalkers count on being able to manipulate others besides their victim
> to create a tie where there is none.  Assigning equal quilt for the
> problem of stalking to the victims is precisely what stalkers are
> seeking--there are seldom any crimes today where this is still done.
> It used to be everywhere, not just in some countries, that victims of
> rape are held culpable for being raped.  This is the case in only a
> few countries, though. Most of the world today does not assign a
> victim guilt in the crime done to them. Stalking is abberant
> behaviour, and it is a crime.  The victim is not the guilty party, and
> is not equal to their attacker in this.


People are not guilty for removing links to websites. People are guilty for
removing links to websites which supplement and benefit the encyclopaedia,
and this applies regardless of their standing as an editor or how much we
like them. The point I was trying to make here is that we have been letting
the subject of harassment overshadow this whole debate - that it is
something which must be given secondary consideration in light of the
encyclopaedia's primacy.

The courts and the psychiatric community has long since realized that
> stalkers do not have to be aided by their victims, and that victims
> are not the cause of their being stalked.  Please don't say that they
> have an arguably equal conflict of interest, when they don't have to
> ever engage their stalker in any way to be made a victim, whereas the
> stalker has to actively target and attempt to engage not just their
> victim, but the community on behalf of the stalker targetting the
> victim.  Granting this to the stalker is way beyond acceptable.


We are not talking about people who sit back when harassed. We are talking
about people who launch witch hunts which ultimately hurt the encyclopaedia.

Johnleemk