I'll risk choking up your e-mail accounts to say that I agree with Oneguy here.
----- Original Message -----
From: OneGuy <oneguyks(a)gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Censorship, really?
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:12:52 -0600
>
> Someone wrote:
>
> <something about censorship>
>
> Every newspaper/encyclopedia/media has some kind of editorial policy.
> This is not the same thing as "censorship." A newspaper puts all the
> sports stories in one section, all the local news in another, and
> keeps the classified ads separately from the news and editorials.
> Censorship means trying to disallow expression of certain views in all
> media, but we are not trying to remove the picture from everywhere on
> the internet. You are free to post that picture on your web site if
> you want. We won't campaign to get it deleted from your web site.
> Having an editorial policy on graphic pictures is not "censorship."
> That has to be the most absurd claim posted yet. Should we have no
> editorial policy and no limits? Should we allow trolls to upload child
> porn as an excuse to "illustrates" the child porn article? How about
> allowing trolls to upload bestiality, anal sex, coprophilia,
> urolagnia, necrophilia, and rape porn to illustrate those articles?
> That's clearly absurd. There should be clear editorial policy on
> graphic pictures. If not, and if every troll is allowed to upload all
> kinds of graphic pictures as an excuse to "illustrate" articles,
> Wikipedia would get blocked by all child protection software, some
> ISPs, and all countries where porn is illegal. That's clearly harmful
> to Wikipedia, and it opens the door to trolls to disrupt Wikipedia by
> uploading even more extreme and graphic porn, and then cry
> "censorship" when it is removed.
>
> OneGuy
> (Sorry, couldn't resist responding when I read some preposterous claim
> about "censorship" on the archive).
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
How is one to call for a sysop have their privileges removed for blocking? RfC, the first step, states that "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." I'm not sure my complaint applies. It is that sysop Ta bu shi da yu blocked user NSM88 in violation of the blocking policy. This may be called "resolved" (I'm not sure) because NSM88 has been subsequently unblocked(?). But regardless, I consider TBSDY's actions to be an abuse of the blocking policy and would like to move for his administrator privileges to be removed.
I see ArbCom has rejected a number of cases for not going through RfC. How am I to do this under RfC's terms?
Dispute resolution against sysops is currently very, very slim. It should be easier to lose administrator privileges--and these are privileges--than to gain them. I cannot find any information on the consequences of out-of-policy blocks, and Blocking_policy's coverage of ethics consists only of "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." Does that cover personal attacks or threats? Is a sysop permitted to declare text of a user with whom they are in conflict a threat and summarily block them? Yes, I'm talking about TBSDY and User:SS-88 in that case.
Originally posted to Wikipedia-l, repost here after suitability complaint.
[[w:User:119]]
[[User:Pjacobi]] is on a hunt in the English and German Wikipedia to put
articles of VfD that he thinks are POV forks i.e. all Criticism articles
including [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] that has survived VfD a couple of
weeks ago. Other possible unjustified victims of the hunt are
[[Criticism of Prem Rawat]]. I agree that POV forks should be avoided
but a Criticism article does not have to be a POV fork.
[[User:Pjacobi]] overlooks the fact that there are legitimate criticism
articles. Legitimate criticism articles fulfill the following
conditions.
1. The main article is too big to contain all points the criticism. The
main article should contains a summary of the criticisms
2. The criticisms follow normal standards of NPOV, verifiability,
documentation elsewhere etc.
3. The points of criticism are followed by rebuttals that follow the
normal standards
4. The subject is relative to its size so controversial that it warrants
a separate criticism article. For example, the controversial status of
Scientology justifies an article [[Scientology_controversy]]
[[User:Pjacobi]] and I [[user:Andries]] agree that we need guidelines
about what Pjacobi calls "POV forks".
Andries K.D.
I just thought I'd make a cheerful note that, as of today, my little
music expansion project
has accumulated 189 full length (copyleft) songs --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound/list for the full list.
This includes 44 by Handel, 20 by Mozart, 18 by Beethoven, and 17 by Bach.
Also, I sent a permission request to a violin professor at Wichita State
U, and his response was the best I have *ever* recieved: "I am a big fan
of Wikipedia and am flattered and thrilled at this request. There are
currently no copyrights on my music at ampcast. If you have a
step-by-step process of how to best make these works available to you,
please send it to me. I will also look into this. " - so I expect to be
adding a fair amount more in the near future.
--Mark
Sounds good to me.
Arno
----- Original Message -----
From: "James D. Forrester" <james(a)jdforrester.org>
To: "'English Wikipedia'" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't push POV into the Wikipedia software and policies
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:33:30 -0000
>
> On Thursday, February 24, 2005 5:36 PM, Tony Sidaway
> <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
> > Stan Shebs said:
> >
> > > Even though we ourselves might not want a bowdlerized WP,
> > > it would be extraordinarily convenient to have some kind
> > > of subset quasi-mirror that advertised themselves as
> > > "child-safe".
> >
> > Absolutely. This is what I've been proposing for some time.
>
> Indeed. It's called "Wikipedia 1.0", and /that/ can have filtering and
> whathaveyou as much as you want, with a "child-friendly" default (whatever
> that is). My, and I think perhaps quite a few others', main problem with the
> use of server-side filtering is that it evidently won't be 100% effective in
> a dynamic environment, and it only takes one slip-up - just one - to cause a
> PR problem of which it seems to be primarily developed with a mind to
> attempting to avoid. I would absolutely /love/ to participate in the
> Wikipedia 1.0 project, including very much content-categorisation.
>
> So how about it, everybody? ;-)
>
> Yours,
> --
> James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
>
> Mail: james(a)jdforrester.org | jon(a)eh.org | csvla(a)dcs.warwick.ac.uk
> IM : (MSN) jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
What if any zealot realises an objection to any reference whatever to Mr X being Gay, having children
outside of marriage, being of non-caucasion marriage, having "***-challenged" outsode of marriage,
etc.
This is a problem that wikipedia can and does have.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christiaan Briggs" <christiaan(a)last-straw.net>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Political correctness vs NPOV
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:01:09 +0000
>
> Yes, an ambiguous term, like "discrimination." Many terms that are
> equated mostly with negative connotations (mostly for political
> reasons) are in fact neutral terms. Hence we have negative and
> positive discrimination for instance.
>
> Christiaan
>
> On 24 Feb 2005, at 7:48 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > That effectively converts the term into an ambiguous one. We may
> > easily agree that the three issues that you list have more
> > positive than negative connotations, but the person who believes
> > that trees cause pollution will see the political correctness of
> > the environmentalist as a negative. This does not bode well for
> > any menaingful use of the term.
> > Ec
> >
> > Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> >
> >> Political correctness may often be used as a pejorative term but
> >> it actually has positive connotations as well as the negative
> >> that Ray has pointed out. Political correctness has been used
> >> for all sorts of issues, e.g. civil rights movement, womens
> >> rights, and the environment to name a few. In this sense it is
> >> not always something to be "overcome" but encouraged in some
> >> instances.
> >>
> >> Christiaan
> >>
> >> On 24 Feb 2005, at 6:19 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >>
> >>> Arno M wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Just out of curiosity - does Political correctness apply as
> >>>> NPOV or as an ideology as described below?
> >>>
> >>> Political correctness is independent of the ideology it
> >>> supports. It can attach to any ideology. It will generally
> >>> involve supporting the "right" views as they prevail in the
> >>> society out of fear of being seen as different. Sometimes the
> >>> penalty for not being politically correct may be social
> >>> ostracism; in other circumstances, such as in Nazi Germany, the
> >>> penalties could be far more severe. In the United States
> >>> supporting the troops in Iraq is a matter of political
> >>> correctness.
> >>>
> >>> Thus I would see political correctness as neither NPOV nor an
> >>> ideology. At the same time practitioners of political
> >>> correctness have a personal need to believe that their actions
> >>> express a NPOV, something which they can easily confirm in the
> >>> positive feedback loop of their own community. Overcoming
> >>> political correctness requires both insight and courage.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
"Parents and school administrators and especially in the United States, local school boards. A teacher who allows their students free access to Wikipedia is a fool."
A similar question involves minors accessing it at home or in some public library that bans access to sexually explicit sites.
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Just out of curiosity - does Political correctness apply as NPOV or as
an ideology as described below?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] When goals conflict: There is no "right" foreveryoneto edit Wiki
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:08:32 -0700
>
> Certain religions and ideologies systematically devalue most of humanity.
> Wikipedia policies are a sustained assault against that frame of mind.
>
> Fred
>
> > From: El C <el.ceeh(a)gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: El C <el.ceeh(a)gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> > <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:51:50 -0500
> > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] When goals conflict: There is no "right" for everyoneto
> > edit Wiki
> >
> > When one editor sees another not as human but as sub-human,
> > intrinsically and irreversibly, such a dialogue, though it might find
> > formal expression, is a caricature by any stretch.
> >
> >> The hardest thing with Wikipedia is to realize that two editors with
> >> diametrically opposite views both still are humans, and still can be
> >> reasonable people. Denying that your opponent is also human is a grave
> >> error and leads to lots of bad things happening in the world.
> >
> >> For an example of a well-behaved, NPOV-writing nazi (albeit a convert)
> >> see Spandau: The Secret Diaries by Albert Speer.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
I urge everyone here to read my two posts in this thread carefuly
(they are not too lengthy), it a rather fitting illustration, I
challenge, as to the double-speak meaning of the passage cited bellow.
Such a lengthy polemic might be useful as a political pamphlet, but I
would hope that the other posters reading this thread can draw from
this discussion more than finding an opening for the immediate,
tactical interests of their own ideologies.
(under the pretext of assaulting, defending, and otherwise assailing
against propaganda).
>Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or propaganda.
When one editor sees another not as human but as sub-human,
intrinsically and irreversibly, such a dialogue, though it might find
formal expression, is a caricature by any stretch.
>The hardest thing with Wikipedia is to realize that two editors with
>diametrically opposite views both still are humans, and still can be
>reasonable people. Denying that your opponent is also human is a grave
>error and leads to lots of bad things happening in the world.
>For an example of a well-behaved, NPOV-writing nazi (albeit a convert)
>see Spandau: The Secret Diaries by Albert Speer.