QUOTE(Skyring @ Fri 26th May 2006, 5:52pm)
Wikipedia is just a website.
Here's the old chestnut: the "Wikipedia doesn't matter" argument. Who was it who first pointed out the contradiction of the "it's only Wikipedia" argument? I think it was Jason Scott.
Yes, here it is.QUOTE
Having status on WP is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things except for Jimbo who gets all the glory (and takes all the flak). But losing your job is a big deal. I know a bit about Washington and it's a town where if you fall off the ladder, things can get real tough real fast. Destroying someone's career or life is not something that should be done lightly. If you want to talk ethics, ask yourself just what sort of ethical code allows you to do this just to prove some point.
As I understand it her code of ethics forbids her from doing what she was doing. It's interesting that you want to play the ethics game. I didn't reveal her information, but I've seen little or no evidence of any ethics or principles being applied by any Wikipedian, except Jimbo Wales perhaps, who's taken some ethical stands: perhaps because he's one of the few people in a position to.
In my case I was subject to unethical harassment and blocks. Oh, that's right, "it's only Wikipedia", pull that one out again. In which case, if it's only Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't matter, desysop all the current sysops and hand control over to me. After all, it's only a website. It doesn't matter who's in control. Oh, what? Don't want to do it? So it seems that Wikipedia *does* matter, when it's convenient for your purposes. Some contradiction, Shirley? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)