[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Will Beback <will.beback.1 at gmail.com>:

> William Pietri wrote:
>> Will Beback wrote:
>>
>>> [story snipped]
>>>
>>> How should a policy deal with this situation? Should we maintain our
>>> link to the chatboard (which could only used because it was the subject
>>> of the article). Should we link to the harassment as an example of that
>>> community's activism? Should we tell valued editor that the link is more
>>> important than his privacy or well-being?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My view:
>>
>> We should not alter article content one iota in response to external
>> badgering. The only thing that has changed is our view of them, not the
>> NPOV view of them. Ergo, we behave exactly as if they were harassing
>>
>> Editors in good standing should be able to link to the harassment to the
>> extent that they believe it serves some legitimate purpose in
>> furtherance of Wikipedia's mission. If they are linking for some other
>> reason (e.g., or gossip or furthering the harassment) they should be
>> dealt with through our usual mechanisms for miscreants and the
>> clue-deficient.
>>
>> We should tell the editor that we hope they understand that articles
>> should not be affected in any way by internet drama. To the extent that
>> the editor wants to take defensive legal action (like getting a
>> restraining order) we should support them.
> Why would we support an editor in getting a restraining order, but not
> support them by doing any restraining ourselves? What form would this
> support take?

Um, he just said. Getting a restaining order. And yes, it isn't our job to do
that, especially when removing a valid link in an article hardly adds
restraint.

>
>> And we should encourage them
>> to ask for a fellow editor to take over maintaining the article(s) in
>> question, hopefully from a pool of people with thick skins and
>> diplomatic skills.
>>
>>
> So you're saying that if an editor is harassed by an outside group then
> the editor (and Wikipedia) should give in to that harassment. And you
> think that won't affect the POV of a topic? If a group succeeds in
> driving off one editor after another, how many thick-skinned editors are
> there willing to take their places?

No, but the editor may wish to have others help out or take the flack
temporarily. I've done this before for editors who have not as thick skin as I
do, and generally after things die down the editor goes back to that article.
This isn't giving in at all. Giving in would be leaving and never coming back.
It is merely a strategic switching of roles.

*rest snipped*