On May 31, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe
<jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be
a correlation between the
let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as
"sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners".
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and
bad manners", and
– to repel the type of people who would be "allies within the community to
shoot down behaviour like that (civility!)".
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to
repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In
this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose
censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist
comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who
people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of
principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as
irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support
civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
Too commonly on Wikimedia projects, the following two positions are conflated:
(1) Concern about the ratio of content (e.g. the number of one kind of photo vs. another
kind of photo) or the social dynamics around editing
(2) Willingness to engage in censorship
The two are simply not the same. To have a concern (like 1) is not to endorse one specific
course of action (like 2). Offhand, I can't think of any actively engaged Wikipedian
who has ever seriously endorsed censorship in our projects.
In general, within our projects and mailing lists, I'd like to see less inflammatory
rhetoric based on this kind of conflation. I don't think it advances the discussion to
label people as supporting censorship, when they have done no such thing.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]