On 10/17/07, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 10/17/07, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > 15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of
or
> > substantially devoted to harassing its
volunteers. Harassment in this
> context
> > refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without
their
consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening
them with physical
violence.
I'm very worried that this proposal doesn't make any distinction
between article
space and non-article space.
I'm very worried that this means I can't link to an attack site to make
fun
of it, as I did with Brandft's hive mind. (I
was listed on it, so I
thought
it'd make a good userbox joke - gosh, I feel
so old.) This makes no
distinction between intent and actual action - [[mens rea]] for the
legal
nerds out there. In real life, the law sometimes
cannot draw a good
distinction between intent and the act itself, but in Wikipedia, we
usually
can. We should be banning the usage of links for
the express purpose of
harassing or outing editors; not banning links which *might* conceivably
be
used in a context to harass editors simply
because of their content.
I'm inclined to agree. I forgot also that we had fun little threads
occasionally
when people got stuck on Hivemind. JzG announced his placement on
Hivemind.
However, an occasional humorous thread being curtailed seems like a
minor price to pay.
Indeed - rather, I meant that as a humorous example. Now it appears we
cannot even discuss these sites on-wiki - or at the very least, can't
hyperlink URLs to them. And, of course, eventually there will be a notable
site devoted to attacking Wikipedians, at which point, we will have to
re-examine this policy.
Johnleemk