Thats an interesting philosophical argument, but there is a reason most communities of human beings have a plethora of rules. Its indeed true that restrictions sometimes make it impossible to know what someone might do in complete freedom - but so what? I don't care what they "might do" in a state of nature, I care about what they "will do" on Wikipedia. If we have a mechanism for enforcing topic bans we have no need of knowing whether someone would otherwise violate the ban. We don't want them to violate the bans so we can drop a hammer - they have an end other than as a game of chicken.
Nathan
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/08, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I'd oppose this.
If someone isn't able to voluntarily leave a topic alone, he or she shouldn't be welcome on the entire project. The idea of topic bans is rehabilitation not punishment. Topic bans are generally enacted to people who are well-intended (or so we assume per AGF) and very motivated in contributing to that topic in a manner that is not acceptable.
In addition, adding too much handicap to an account promotes
sockpuppetry.
We should be promoting honesty and mutual respect not cunning ways to
avoid
sanctions.
I agree with Cool Cat and Greg on this. It's the Garden of Eden metaphor all over again. Removing free will makes it impossible to evaluate judgment or know whether "rehabilitation" is a realistic goal.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l