Well, my point was not so much about the link (and I didn't have any trouble with it) but about the reliability of the sources, both of which are basically anti-immigration screeds and only mention hate speech in passing, without giving any real information about it. The "Defining Hate Speech" paper does go into it in depth, both from a legal aspect, and from the aspect of social media, in a way that you can understand the issues, objections, and limitations. There are probably enough citations in there you could use it to rewrite the whole article, the way Kevin did with the revenge porn article.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
It's worth checking the Wayback Machine before concluding that a link is truly dead -- the PDF still lives here: https://web.archive.org/web/20020127181112/http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/eleven-two/xi-2-91.pdf

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM, <dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

>Finally, for an understanding of the definitions of hate speech, forget the Wikipedia article, which >embarrassingly uses the words "politically correct" and "Newspeak" in the introductory >paragraphs, sourced to opinion pieces by two bloggers who did not even use the words.

 

I just fixed that (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech&diff=prev&oldid=754831551) One of the cited sources was, in fact, dead, and you are correct that the other one didn’t use either term.

 

Daniel Case


_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap