>The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but,
>'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal >systems and thresholds would make
>no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see
>what the >public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should
>be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
Well, there’s this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Threats_of_violence
which never became policy (probably because, it seems, people discussed it more
in light of threats of suicide rather than threats to others). But it may be
time to revisit that.
I assume, in the hypothetical you’re talking about, the question would be
whether someone was punished in real life for threats made on-wiki that
resulted in no action from the ArbCom? Or from anyone? In the former, yes, the
public fallout would be interesting; in the latter, it would depend on whether
anyone with the power to take action knew.
I do recall some past cases, once described on the now-deleted “List of banned
users”, where the trigger for the formal ban (as opposed to the never-lifted
indefinite block) was a user threatening violence against someone (usually via
their latest sock).
Of course, if someone were to be incarcerated in real life as a result of their
on-wiki threats, any action after that other than blocking the account to
prevent some hacker from making use of it would really be superfluous.
Daniel Case
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
