View source for Criticisms of HypertWiki

Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.
==Issues==
In the course of the discussions with that person, however, some interesting issues have come up:
* Are personal emails considered confidential by default?
* Are personal emails considered to be copyrighted (another means of requiring confidentiality)?
* If someone criticizes me in writing, does that have any effect on whatever presumed confidentiality may exist &ndash; in other words, must I still keep those criticisms ''of me'' confidential? Do I not have some extra license towards posting confidential writing when that writing is criticism of myself? If I value that criticism, then I might want to keep it confidential in order to avoid a chilling effect &ndash; but if I am finding the criticism baffling, then does it not seem somehow reasonable to post it publicly? Possible benefits:
*# stop the flow of baffling criticism
*# maybe someone else will understand the criticism and explain it to me
*# perhaps someone will side with me, and give me better arguments to use against said criticism
*: The worst-case scenario being that someone explains it to me and I realize that it was valid, ''and'' I have now alienated the person who sent it to me &ndash; but I never would have understood it if I hadn't posted it, so this still seems like a gain.
* If someone emailed me threats of physical harm, those emails would (as I understand it) be considered evidence, and therefore not confidential. Where is the boundary line between threats and criticism?
** Is it when the criticism becomes abusive?
** Is it when I reach the point where I no longer care about maintaining the other person's trust in me?
* Some people apparently regard "open letters" as inherently hostile. Do most people agree with this? If so, why?

I think part of the complication here may be because there are two different sets of rules involved: statutory rules (law) and social rules (etiquette).

Social rules (as I understand it) are governed by unwritten but semi-obvious contracts between people &ndash; such as "I will continue to trust you as long as you don't abuse that trust." If I post "confidential" writing, I may be violating that trust &ndash; but if I feel that the writer is being abusive to me, I don't really ''care'' too much if they trust me.

'''A tentative rule''': Anyone has the right to confront accusations ''in a public venue'', whether those accusations were made privately or publicly. The accused may choose to respect the accuser's privacy and post such accusations with anonymous attribution; if the accusations are abusive, though, it is not unreasonable for the accused to identify the accuser in order to provide a modicum of deterrence against further abuse. (This is a nicely balanced (even Solomonesque) solution because if the accusation is justified, the accusation is more likely to reflect badly on the accused than on the accuser.)

<center>''"Ultimately, everybody will find out everything."'' &ndash; saying at Google [http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/2007/01/01/transparency-is-inevitable/]

''"Three things can not hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the Truth."'' &ndash; Siddhartha Gautama
</center>
==Related Links==
* '''2006-12-29''' [http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/16345307.htm Some rethink posting of private info]