[Wikipedia-l] Autofellatio

[Mark Williamson]

Gregory, let me tell you, Jimbo doesn't seem to understand
metaphorical language or figures of speech, and I don't think he can
tell when people are being completely serious or when they're
exaggerating a bit. I know this from experience, and have had the same
problem with Danny. I have been told by one of them (can't remember
which), "Nobody's saying you burned their crops". He also doesn't seem
to understand very well the sliding scale that should be used in the
case of an e-mail like yours.

He seems to think that you were directly suggesting Ant fork, which is
definitely not the case. (as far as I can tell, you are saying that
she is at odds with foundation philosophy and that if she really wants
to have a Wikipedia where it doesn't follow philosophy, she can make a
fork; rather than a suggestion that she really should)

My advice is to be very literal with him, and only say exactly what you mean.

Mark

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:11:55 -0500, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 04:42:36 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
> <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > > If your interest is to censor encyclopedic content on any wikimedia
> > > wikipedia, then your goals are at odds with the goals of the
> > > foundation.  Because you do not share the same goals, you should fork
> > > and produce your own project with censorship among it's goals.
> >
> > This is really over-the-top, Gregory.
> 
> Is that really the case?
> I'm surprised that you would disagree with the statement above, that
> if someone's intention is to censor encyclopedic content, based on
> such value judgements, that they are at odds with the project and
> should work on something else.
> 
> I certainly see how you might state that I was mistaken in classifying
> the proposed measures as censorship, or that it was rude of me to
> insult someone of unquestionable value...
> 
> > My problem with people using the word "censorship" in talking about
> > this very complex issue is precisely that we get responses like yours,
> > which are really not very helpful and short-circuit our ability to
> > think critically about the issue.
> >
> > We are *all* (the major participants) opposed to censorship (in the
> > sense that you mean), including (very strongly) Anthere.  It is our
> > goal to educate and inform, not to shock, offend, or titillate.
> > Of course there is a tiny majority of people who are interested in
> > censoring Wikipedia.  Fine.  Ignore them.
> 
> This is quite heartening to hear reaffirmed.
> 
> At the same time, what I see being proposed is the idea that it's
> acceptable for wikipedias in differing languages to have a differing
> set of standards, and this is the one, and perhaps only, point where I
> am reasonably confident that I am not misunderstanding Anthere.  I
> don't see how these ideas can coexist.
> 
> If our test of a material is it's value to educate and inform, is it
> not true that the same material which would educate and inform would
> also educate and inform people of another language?
> 
> A policy that says that we will exclude content differently depending
> on the language of wikipedia, says that we are applying an additional
> test, a test of moral rightness.
> 
> > But don't imagine that those of us who think that, for example, it is
> > blatantly obvious that the [[Imgae:Autofellatio_2.jpg]] image is wildly
> > inappropriate for wikipedia are simply prudish censors.  Such a view
> > really fails to respect and understand the point that we are making.
> 
> This thread is surrounded on all sides with bad information...
> Anthere's initial concern was primarily about vandalism... But
> vandalism is an issue that we can't even come close to solving by the
> proposed measures that I objected so strongly to (value based
> standards of content)...
> 
> The autofellatio image is a bad example because most people would
> agree that it has some of the poorest inform to shock ratios of call
> the contested images on wikipedia.  (I'd still argue it's of value, as
> one person said after seeing it... "wow.. thats possible? eww",  but I
> haven't been involved in the voting for that image and don't intend to
> be)
> 
> I jumped in the thread because I believe that the idea of differing
> standards inclusion standards in differing languages necessitates
> censorship and I decided that it was a worthwhile matter which was
> being ignored in the thread... because of the separately worthwhile
> discussion of applying technical means to address that specific form
> of vandalism.
> 
> > A respectful discussion of this difficult issue is hard to have if
> > anyone who is in favor of deleting some images from wikipedia is to be
> > shunned as a censor who ought to leave the project and fork.
> 
> My apologies, both to the list and Anthere, on this matter... My
> attempt cut away issues I saw as extranious to the issue I wanted to
> discuss (vandalism, that specific image,etc) came off as offensive. (I
> may not care if you find a useful image on the 'pedia offensive, but I
> really would hope you don't find my discussions as offensive.)
> 
> Grey paint begins with black and white.
> 
> I did not mean to imply that we should shun the issues or the people
> bringing them, but rather strike up some vigorous discussion on this
> important matter...   and through out some ideas that I think should
> be widely acceptable, such as "if making good/evil value judgements
> about content is someones goal then everyone would gain from them
> working on a fork, given the intentions of the project".
> 
> > Especially, for goodness sake, Anthere, who is a hero to us all.
> 
> Well,  If I'm going to have to base my discussions on whom is
> proposing an idea rather than the merits of the idea, then I should
> probably give up now.... :)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>