joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
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?
As I've attempted to explain before, having the link to their article doesn't substantially reduce the editor's privacy or wellbeing. It is especially ridiculous in either your RoosterChat case or the MichaelMore case because anyone who is looking for information about RoosterChat will want to know what the website is anyways and can google for it. So all we are doing is compromising NPOV and losing the moral highground of not involving our encyclopedia with our disputes.
I take issue with what I believe your saying. What we're talking here about are disputes that are due to encyclopedia editing. Yes, there are some folks with pre-existing battles who come to Wikipedia to settle scores, which never should have come to WP to begin with. That's nt what we're talking about. The cases that are the most shocking are those that originate with editors enforcing Wikipedia rules. When folks are doing good they shouldn't be targetted for harassment by POV pushers. When they are we should stand by them. We lose the moral highground and compromise NPOV when we say to folks that are trying to change Wikipedia content that they are free to harass those who enforce Wikipedia policies, and editors who don't like it need to go edit elsewhere so the POV pushers can have their way.
W.