On 21/09/2007, William Pietri william@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]