Armed Blowfish wrote:
Who is this we of whom you speak? I am not a Wikipaedian.
Yes, I think we all get that now, thanks.
Going from the assumption that you are actually asking and not using my comment just for a rhetorical launch pad into something that's clearly a big issue for you, I'll answer: When I said "we" I referred to the Wikipedia community.
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.
I am going to grit my teeth here again and assume that you are not willfully misunderstanding my point. However, I do think that you are repeatedly misunderstanding it to the extent that I suspect explaining it again won't help. From my side, it feels like you are picking out minor parts of what I've written, arguing with those bits, and ignoring the meat of what I'm saying
I know this is an emotional topic for you, apparently based on deep personal trauma, so perhaps I'm expecting too much in the way of reasoned discussion. If so, sorry; we can pass on to some other topic. Regardless, let me try one last time:
Nobody reasonable is advocating for unrestricted on-Wiki gossip. Nobody is requesting unlimited power to dig through somebody's personal life when it has no bearing on on-Wiki behavior or Wikipedia's governance.
What I am saying is that when concerns are raised about things that could affect Wikipedia's quality or reputation, Wikipedians should be able to look into those concerns. If that leads them to information published elsewhere on the Internet, even information some would rather keep quiet, we should generally trust them to handle that information wisely. If that leads them to people being jerks in ways that we wouldn't accept on Wikipedia, we should trust our colleagues to recognize the jerkiness. And to aid Wikipedians in coming to the right conclusions, we should let them discuss the issues as much as they need to. When specific people fail to handle that power responsibly, we should deal with them in the ways we already deal with malice and foolishness.
Yes, people will get things wrong sometimes. Usually, they will get it right. Right or wrong, their opinions will make people sad sometimes. I regret that, but believe the alternatives on offer are much more harmful.
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?
Again, I feel like this is so tangential as to miss the point, but I'll play along for a bit more.
Under the US Constitution, they have every right. And you have the right to carry on judging them for judging. The notion is that over time, the truth wins out. And that letting the truth win out is more important than preventing bad feelings in the meantime.
Take a look at this guy:
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=26888@kpix.dayport.com
Did he change his judging of homosexuals because a committee somewhere ordered him to? Or because people with power suppressed mention of the views that he previously held?
I don't think so. I think he's verging on tears because an honest examination of things led him to a powerful truth.
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. [...]
JFK is a very public figure. The average internet user - whether an admin, a banned user, or a WP critic - is not.
Yes, but again you miss my point. Or at least appear to ignore it, using a snippet to jump to something else. I find that very frustrating.
However, to address your point, old notions of public and private are changing. Their used to be a wide separation, depending mainly on your access to an expensive communications device like a four-color printing press or a TV transmitter.
But the Internet has changed that. For $50 a month, you can have global distribution of your ideas. For a little more, you can do it with sound and video. The narrowing cost gap means a narrowed gap between public and private. And that gap will continue to narrow and blur as the technology gets cheaper. [1]
Wikipedia is an open project building the world's most read factual source. The notion that one could play an important public role in that and not thereby become an object of discussion is not just wrong, it's absurd. Wikipedia is essentially and inescapably a public endeavor. Electing to participate is putting oneself in the public sphere.
No, this is not a license to gossip endlessly. No, this does not excuse people being jerks. However, most-read factual source or not, our powers are limited. We cannot end gossip or jerkiness. The best we can do is to discourage those things on-wiki, and allow honest investigation of legitimate complaints, so that Wikipedians can judge for themselves what has merit and what does't.
William
[1] See Brin's "The Transparent Society" for a detailed look at this.