[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Armed Blowfish]

On 21/09/2007, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> Armed Blowfish wrote:
>> Not all discussion, just public discussion of specific
>> attacks, unless of course the attackee wants to talk
>> about it.
>
> We are an open community. It would be great if we could discuss things
> in private, but the only shared discussion is unfortunately a public
> one. This is a core aspect of Wikipedia. There is such public objection
> to your approach precisely because is undermines that core.

Who is this we of whom you speak?  I am not a Wikipaedian.

If the community feels that openness should extend to the
point of public discussion of the private lives of individuals,
that community possesses an incredible lack of discretion.

>> But if you do let people talk about it, some of them may
>> agree with the attacks, or say that the attackee needs to
>> have thicker skin.  As Fred pointed out, some things which
>> may be said are false, but not obviously so. I'm not saying
>> you would, but it is common practise.
>>
>> Thus, public discussion of the matter can have very real
>> damaging effects on the attackees.
>
> I'm not denying any of that. However, the notion that we should suppress
> information because some people might end up with an opinion not
> officially sanctioned is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia.  More
> importantly, it doesn't work.

And what right do random people on the internet have to
judge the sex life of a private individual?

> Going into the JFK article and removing all mention of conspiracy
> theories because they are bunk will not, in the long term, reduce their
> popularity or longevity. Sure, some people will not hear about them, so
> they will have the "right" opinion. But you'll make the conspiracy nuts
> more adamant, as you have just proved the conspiracy is even bigger than
> they thought.

JFK is a very public figure.  The average internet user -
whether an admin, a banned user, or a WP critic - is not.

[snip]