Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 21/09/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Depends on the site. If the site is used in a campaign of harassment, maliciously, yes.
Fred
Maliciousness or lack thereof is irrelevant. (WP certainly attacked DB before DB started outing... other people.) The goal should be to protect people. People can be hurt regardless of the presence or absence of maliciousness.
I disagree that our purpose should be to prevent people feeling hurt. Imelda Marcos feels terribly hurt by all the accusations against her and her husband, for example. Ferdinand was really just a savvy investor, you know.
Or you could consider the case of the activist S. Brian Wilson, who was protesting military aid to Nicaragua. A munitions train crew intentionally ran him down, cutting off both of his legs. Navy medical corpsmen at the scene refused to treat him, leaving his medical care to bystanders and the eventual arrival of a public ambulance. He didn't blame them; as a Vietnam vet, he knew they were just following orders. The train crew, however, did blame him, suing him for "humiliation, mental anguish, and physical stress". [1]
Who feels hurt is not a good indicator of actual wrongdoing.
As an organization, we should strive mightily to promote civil discussion, and to swiftly reign in community members who are acting with malice. And as people, we should always strive to comfort the afflicted, regardless of whether their affliction is earned. But we shouldn't mix the two by giving the institution a role in making people feel better.
William
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Brian_Willson#Concord_protest_and_injuries, plus Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion", p216-7