Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > At 03:40 AM 5/10/02, Jeroen wrote: > >At 18:26 09-05-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > >> > Again I disagree. It is no more of a threat than the existence of on-line > >> > archives. People seem to fear that messages on a Wall of Shame will be > >> > read out of context. Well, the exact same thing can happen with messages > >> > in on-line archives. Therefore, you should be equally opposed to the > >> > existence of such archives, and demand that (in our case) Yahoogroups.com > >> > and Mail-archive.com remove their Brin-L archives, and demand that the > >> > Great Brin-L Archive never be put on-line. > >> > > >>So.........the intent of the archives at those sites is to shame people? > >>I dont think so. > > > >That is not what I said. Those archives do not exist to shame people, but > >they offer the opportunity to read single posts out of context and thus > >give a wrong impression of someone. Therefore, if people are opposed to a > >Wall of Shame they should also be opposed to the existence of on-line archives. > > The archives are not labelled "Wall of Shame." That label suggests to > anyone reading it that those people whose names appear there have done > something shameful. The same thing is not suggested by their posts > appearing in the archives. > > -- Ronn! :) >
Who coined the term "Wall of Shame" to describe Jeroen's proposed project in the first place. IIRC, it wasn't him. I'm not sure I support this project, but I do agree that there should be some agent of accountability. We already have transparency with the archives, but we've seen the etiquette guidelines broken time and again, and the current accountability methods don't give the offenders any pause. -- Matt
