QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 4:30pm)
It would be helpful if Joshua would publish a short list of the rare items on WR that he judges as helpful, so that we could vector our musings more in that mutually beneficial direction.
I'm guessing they would like discussion in the 'Editors' section of
the website to be restricted to noting when people violate their
policy, i.e. no ethical commentary, and even then for there to be
no criticism of people who have high rank.
(In one sense, they are right - it is better to talk to
people than about
people. On the other hand, for many of the people here,
talking to these people is not an option, leaving talking about
them as the only option besides accepting being gagged.
Furthermore, the inverse relationship between how tolerant they
are of criticism and how highly the target of criticism ranks in their
hierarchy makes them hypocrites.)
Furthermore, I'm guessing they'd like further discussion in the
'Articles' section of the website, detailing how articles deviate from their
policy, suggesting sources and improvements.
(A few problems here - may of the members here are banned.
Isn't the whole point of banning people that you don't want their
help anymore? Well, not necessarily. Even if you are banned,
they might accuse you of 'blackmailing' them if you state you
have no interest in contributing to articles just because they
banned you. And then some of us are on strike anyway....)
Note they do not want ethical commentary. They want to be
judged by their own standards. (Errr?)
I'm not sure if ethical debates over their policy offend them more
or less than commentary on the high ranking members of the WP
hierarchy. It probably depends on who you ask. On the one hand,
they might consider criticism of their policy to be an attack against
*all of WP*. On the other hand, their own policy does technically
say no personal attacks, not no group attacks, so it should
theoretically be more acceptable to them than criticism of individual
editors. In reality, some of them may be more upset about criticism
of WP as a whole than criticism of individual editors, since they
believe the project 'transcends' all individuals.
Disclaimer: Individual members of WP have individual opinions.
I am sure my summary does not reflect all of them.