[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[David Goodman]

>
> 1. We must do everything possible to protect editors from harm.
> 2. A BADSITES-like policy would protect editors from harm.
> 3. A. B. is against BADSITES-like policies.
> 4. Therefore, squelching A. B. protects editors from harm.
>
> I don't see how you can be against step 4.  I guess you're not
> interested in protecting Wikipedia's editors.

let's generalize a little:

1. We must do everything possible to protect editors from harm
2. Eliminating all biographical articles about living people would
help prevent editors from harm.
3. Some million editors or so want to write such articles
4. Banning them all from WP would protect the remaining editors from harm.

#2 is not theoretical--I saw it proposed yesterday. But perhaps we
want something less drastic. Substitute:

2A. Letting all subjects of biographical articles rewrite them to
their own satisfaction would decrease the motives for harming editors.
2B. Letting all companies, publications , and web sites rewrite their
own articles would further decrease the motives for harming editors
2C. Never saying anything negative about anyone or anything would
almost totally remove the motive.
2D. Not inserting references in articles to places where editors are
discussed would slightly lower their visibility and thus protect
editors.
2E. Not allowing links to web sites that discuss editors would
somewhat lower their visibility on search engines and thus protect
editors.
2F. Not allowing links to web sites that discuss editors in a way the
editors in question  think is detrimental would at least partially
lower their visibility and thus protect editors.

where along the spectrum do people here stand? I say that

2G. Reporting the world as it is will protect people in the long run
by exposing those who would harm editors.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.