<DIV>Is this "soft security" or "containment by appeasement" . Not that I disagree --rather for sake of conversation, I'll go along with your point, Toby -- I do think there is real philosphical issue here that should be hammered out. Can we realistically take hard stands? Can we realistically set community standards? Im personally not offended by it (IANG) but we do seem to be appeasing POV and stereotype rather than find a way to frame it or barring that flushing it. People had the same kind of antipathy towards the AKFD article-- and Ive always thought its because theres a misunderstanding of NPOV or trolling.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>~S~<BR><BR><B><I>Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">[Sent to both <WIKIEN-L>and directly to RickK by email,<BR>since RickK seems to have requested that.]<BR><BR>RickK wrote:<BR><BR>>Louis Kyu Won Ryu <LAZOLLA@HOTMAIL.COM>wrote:<BR><BR>>>The first edits under the name Jesus_is_Lord! began October 6. <BR>>>Generally, the edits appear helpful and in good faith. Most have been <BR>>>made to articles addressing homosexual issues. In contrast to the <BR>>>assumption many have made (me included until I read through the <BR>>>history), the edits do not reflect an anti-gay bias.<BR><BR>>Really? A scatalogical definition of "Fudgepacker"<BR>>is not indicative of an anti-gay bias?<BR><BR>But isn't that what the word in fact means?<BR>To report on anti-gay prejudice is not to be anti-gay;<BR>quite the contrary.<BR><BR>I found the article informative, and I'm hardly anti-gay.<BR>While I have grave suspicions
about JiL's intentions here,<BR>I must protest the condemnation of this article /as such/.<BR>If JiL is anti-gay, then he is being more subtle about it<BR>(as any decent troll would be) than you seem to be inferring.<BR><BR>Indeed, this is the perfect edit for a troll;<BR>it would let a troll call us "fudgepackers" in its heart,<BR>while not explicitly condoning the word's usage<BR>in any of the article text that the troll actually writes.<BR>But the proper response is to neutralise the troll's activities --<BR>say by incorporating the information into [[Homophobic hate speech]]<BR>on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary,<BR>thus avoiding a proliferation of articles named after slurs<BR>without any appearance of direct censorship --<BR>rather than to attack the troll directly, which only feeds it.<BR>(I'm not committed to the position that JiL is a troll, BTW.<BR>But I find it a plausible hypothesis, and I'm willing to accept it<BR>for the sake of this
argument.)<BR><BR><BR>-- Toby<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org<BR>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://shopping.yahoo.com/?__yltc=s%3A150000443%2Cd%3A22708228%2Cslk%3Atext%2Csec%3Amail">The New Yahoo! Shopping</a> - with improved product search