Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 18/09/2007, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>
wrote:
However: we should not, cannot, must not attempt
to enact blanket
bans on all links to "attack sites"... It's possible to justify
such an attempted ban under the "protect them from harm" doctrine,
but a ban goes too far. It harms the project, and does *not* help
the injured editor.
...Wikipaedia's lack of concern for its own editors lowers my
opinion of the whole project.
You see, this is the part that really sticks in my craw.
If something gets proposed that is claimed to "protect an editor
from harm", and if I disagree with it, I'm automatically accused
of having a "lack of concern".
Not at all: I might be (I am) *very* concerned, but merely
in disagreement on the usefulness or appropriateness of that
particular proposed remedy.
The apparent "you're either with us or against us" mentality
is as shortsighted and divisive here as it is anywhere else.