Why do you keep putting ... back on the drop-outs page? He's taken great pains to remove himself from Wikipedia. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, but its pretty obvious that he doesn't want to be there. STG
I don't see why we should respect the wishes of people who are no longer participants in Wikipedia, especially if the wishes regard deletion. --The Cunctator
I look at it like this: if the page was "Politicians who have criminal records" and some politician didn't want to be on the list, I wouldn't honor that wish. In short, this is information which belongs to society, not to the individual. That's pretty righteous, I know, but this is crucial knowledge if Wikipedia is to have any means of self-criticism. --The Cunctator
Well, I wouldn't compare contributing to Wikipedia and having a criminal record, but hey... I'd rather you'd let him leave in peace, but I doubt that either of us will convince the other. Besides, I'm hungry and want some supper.
I will say this, though, just so you know where I stand: even though I've had some strong disagreements with you, I recognize that you were motivated by a deep concern for the Wikipedia project, and I appreciate the massive amount you have contributed. I disagreed with your methods, but never questioned your motivation. --STG
I admit my analogy had some, er...amusing implications. But I doubt the mention of [the handle] on this page will haunt the person who used to use that handle (note: they're not the same thing!).
I chose the title for the page. I didn't expect it to be perceived as non-NPOV. After all, isn't a drop-out simply someone who decides to drop out of a project? The usernames of contributors who quit are perhaps useful, but they are not essential to understand their motives for quitting. I think we should refer to them namelessly, should they request it. --(name withdrawn ;-)
I just think it's beneficial to Wikipedia to understand why people leave. How is the page not NPOV? Is it the title?
The drop-out list is as extensive and complete as possible. I'm not personally aware of any other members who have stated that they are leaving.
I'm not trying to attack the person who wants all history of his presence erased personally, I'm just not currently convinced his desire to erase his presence outweighs the reasons to include the username on the site. I still hope he'll email me at kband.com.
I too don't think it would be bad if the name was removed/obscured if someone (preferably that user) wrote the story of why he left, so the rest of the community knows. That's more important than the username (which is needed for verifiability, unfortunately).
I imagine that some people think there are Wikipedia-related political aims behind this page, and that's why they don't want to be listed on it. Their removing themselves from the page, in that case, should be construed as a desire not to support those political aims, not as censorship. This being a wiki, I would say that's their prerogative, and that you should respect it. --Larry_Sanger
I totally agree with you that people should be able to remove themselves from Wikipedia (or any other wiki) if they so desire. --Stephen Gilbert
- I continue to believe that people are not synonymous with their usernames, and should not have ownership over them (except to prevent mistaken identities, perhaps) after they stop contributing. --The Cunctator
I think that a list such as this would be far more useful if it were used to catalogue the reasons people leave, as opposed to the people themselves. --Stephen Gilbert
Good point, Stephen. The whole of this should perhaps be moved to a page titled something like "Reasons for leaving Wikipedia" (and edited accordingly). --user:Seb
I'd also like to point out that much of the page implicitly assumes that someone leaving is a bad thing, or that someone's leaving implies there's something wrong with Wikipedia or the process. If someone comes to Wikipedia thinking it is one thing (like a community for the free exchange of ideas), and then leaves because he doesn't want to support its actual goal (creating an encyclopedia), then that's a good thing. Lee Daniel Crocker
It's just allright to have a censor like LMS, but many people are put off by his insensitive aggressive behaviour
- I think LMS is usually sensitive. He is critical but seldom aggressive. Of course it all depends on what one considers aggressive. This list would quickly get much lengthier if he was.