Wikipedia talk:Correspondence off-wiki

This page was nominated for deletion on 2007-12-17. The result of the discussion was closed as defective.

New proposal

OK, per WT:PRIVATE#Alernative #2 split to new proposal I've re-split out this proposal from it's diametric opposite, on which WP:Consensus is unlikely to form. I see no point in the endless edit war swapping between the two proposals on the page, and the latest excuse was to declare this proposal invalid because of an ArbCom decision, by an editor who knows ArbCom doesn't create policy.[1] So this seems the only sane way forward at this point, even though these will simply end up competing essays, I expect. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I oppose this proposal. I actually think off-wiki correspondence should be considered private, i.e. what happens off-wiki stays off-wiki. If the person who wrote an item wanted it to be known, they would have posted it on-wiki. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded the the old Marx brother's exchange: Cam you keep a secret? Yes! Well, so can I! If you don't want something to be known, don't tell anyone, or only tell someone you trust. I don't feel editors are under any obligation not to repeat what they hear off wiki. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a POV-fork of the proposed private correspondence policy. Of course it's silly to try to stop people discussing Wikipedia off-wiki, or to attempt to declare such discussion non-private. --Tony Sidaway 10:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, you make one good point -- private is really the wrong word here. The real issue is it shouldn't be considered confidential. I'll try changing the wording. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, seriously, this is an obvious and blatant lift from one draft of the rejected Private correspondence policy. I've tagged it as rejected for that reason. Let's move on. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather quite opposite of that proposal, as anyone can see. I agree this isn't getting much traction. I think it's too soon to reject this out of hand, but if no one else agrees with me on this I guess this won't go anywhere. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]