| Revision as of 05:46, 28 May 2007 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →Great essay: me too← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:47, 28 May 2007 edit undoSophia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,626 edits try discussing this with someone who has been bitten...Next edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| Me too. Great essay. ] 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | Me too. Great essay. ] 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Your essay== | |||
| Try discusing this with the anonymous editor who worked on controversial topics, and who one night suddenly found his family website with his kids names etc. linked to multiple wikipedia talk pages in an attempt to intimidate him over a content dispute. In addition his boss was contacted and false allegations made about his on-wiki behaviour. If those links had not been removed as quickly and as thoroughly as they were I personally would have had nothing more to do with this project. We still lost a good knowledgeable editor in the process anyway but the damage could have been greater. This is not about suppressing criticism - it is ensuring people can edit safely on contentious topics such as ] without fear of real life reprisals. ] 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:47, 28 May 2007
Nice
Nicely argued. You give more lattitude to link to sites than I would, but I consider the matter similar to how WP:BLP relates to standard policy; it does not differ but only makes the enforcement and application a priority. I also think you could note that a couple of the major proponents of the absolutist position have themselves been the victim of sustained and vicious off-Wiki attacks, and that the majority (if not all) of the non-absolutists sympathise with their situation, but not their proposed solution. LessHeard vanU 23:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I enjoyed the essay as well. I especially liked this section. One thing I am not sure is correct and do not feel like looking up at the moment is this: "So we end up with a "I can't define it, but I know one when I see one" attitude (like a Supreme Court justice once expressed with regard to pornography). I thought that opinion was regarding obscenity, but I am not sure. In any case, this is a nice essay and thanks for writing your thoughts on this. daveh4h 06:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The justice involved was Potter Stewart, and the quote actually referred to "hard-core pornography" as what he knows when he sees (and went on to say that the film that was the subject of the particular case wasn't.) *Dan T.* 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well put
I checked out your personal home page too. Nice. --Sheldon Rampton 02:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Extremely well thought out and executed. Thank you, Dan. ---- Michael David 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting read, and the bit about you cant have a list of BADSITES as it would defeat the point is frankl;y hilarious (now why didnt I think of that when I was suggeting we have just such a list), SqueakBox 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Very good essay
And right on point. Abeg92contribs 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
To mention
You really ought to mention the Kafkaesque interpretation in WP:BADSITES which led to links to attack sites being removed *from the attack sites policy discussion when they were being used as examples of why we might want to link to attack sites*. Ken Arromdee 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Great essay
This "policy" is horrendous; thanks for explaining why so well, Dan. CynicElle 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Me too. Great essay. Carcharoth 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Your essay
Try discusing this with the anonymous editor who worked on controversial topics, and who one night suddenly found his family website with his kids names etc. linked to multiple wikipedia talk pages in an attempt to intimidate him over a content dispute. In addition his boss was contacted and false allegations made about his on-wiki behaviour. If those links had not been removed as quickly and as thoroughly as they were I personally would have had nothing more to do with this project. We still lost a good knowledgeable editor in the process anyway but the damage could have been greater. This is not about suppressing criticism - it is ensuring people can edit safely on contentious topics such as abortion without fear of real life reprisals. Sophia 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)