QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 8th September 2009, 7:44pm)
QUOTE(Deodand @ Tue 8th September 2009, 12:55pm)
Ahh, but you don't see. If it was to be known that that person used Wikipedia - what a scandal! The idea that an unknown, nun-loving genderfuck DJ should tarnish his good name by editing Wikipedia!
The infamy!
This is nothing new, of course - WP'ers have a long history of this sort of thing. They want to believe that "editing" is a dangerous, personally risky activity, because that affirms their collective self-image as revolutionaries and iconoclasts. Maintaining their own privacy is paramount, because illusory "IRL threats" could get in the way of their vital mission to destroy whatever's left of academic and journalistic tradition.
Meanwhile, everyone else can go stuff it - "privacy is a quaint and antiquated notion" for anybody who fits someone's arbitrary definition of "notable," as JoshuaZ or Shankers might say.
Ahh, but you're missing the point. You see, "notable" people aren't "important" people. "important" people edit Wikipedia - that's why personal and libelous information about "notable" people is fine (until it affects the "important" people) but any possible threat to "important" people is a heinous crime. Until something affects the "important" people enough to shock them out of their narcissistic little daydream (y'know, that fun one where they're the ruler of the world and everyone does what they say? That one) it's not going to be noticed or dealt with. Of course, once it's been noticed, they'll move heaven and earth to protect their incredibly important real life and the valuable work they do as a legal secretary, or owner of a comic book shop, or part-time DJ on benefits, or something.