[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting fredbaud at waterwiki.info:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu [mailto:joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 05:38 PM
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
>
> Quoting fredbaud at waterwiki.info:
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Pietri [mailto:william at scissor.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 06:08 PM
>> To: 'English Wikipedia'
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
>>
>> fredbaud at waterwiki.info wrote:
>>>> The problem is the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
>>>
>>>
>>> I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to
>>> edit a Wikipedia user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any
>>> excess of ours. In a way, linking to it puts him in a false light,
>>> displaying petty bullying.
>>
>> The NPOV violation here is that in the POV of some of us, harassing,
>> maligning, or exposing Wikipedia editors is a bad thing. More
>> specifically, it is seen as the one bad thing in all the world that
>> might merit link removal. Other people do not share this POV.
>>
>> Perhaps one could make an NPOV-friendly case for removing all links to
>> all harassment, or maligning, or exposing of anonymous or pseudonymous
>> people. It would be even more clearly consistent with NPOV to argue for
>> a removal of all links to all living miscreants everywhere.
>>
>> Needless to say, I don't think those are a good idea either. I think our
>> job is to give people the facts as best we can, while leaving the moral
>> judgments to our readers.
>>
>> William
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Yep, your stawmen are indeed straw. You know they are not genuine
>> alternatives, just debating points.
>> Fred
>>
>
> Fred, if there are strawmen above please explain what they are. I at
> least don't
> see any.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> The statements you say are not good ideas. You are the only one 
> suggesting them. No one is advancing them as serious proposals. You 
> advance them as easy targets, straw men. I speak of
>> Perhaps one could make an NPOV-friendly case for removing all links to
>> all harassment, or maligning, or exposing of anonymous or pseudonymous
>> people. It would be even more clearly consistent with NPOV to argue for
>> a removal of all links to all living miscreants everywhere.
> Fred
>

That appears to be not a strawman, since he isn't asserting that anyone is
making that argument. If he has said "Fred says one should remove all links
that are harassment etc." that would be a strawman. What he is doing here is
presenting a hypothetical that would be consistent with NPOV. That's an
important distinction.