I got the below email, and am unable to help not being an admin.
Please lend a hand. I know nothing of the particulars, btw.
Sam Spade
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: TroyVaughn <flammarion42(a)hotmail.com>
Date: Mar 30, 2006 9:13 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson(a)gmail.com>
82.15.17.152 is the IP of one of the computers at the community
lending library in Belfast City, N. Ireland. Blocking it prevents
other users from the privilege of editing Wikipedia articles. Please
unblock, I promise not to post anything in the articles I was
previously active at anymore.
Thank you.
Anthere wrote:
>I am glad :-)
>You admitted there was a meta community ;-)
>Note : a *meta* community, not a *wiki* community ;-)
>Thanks David
Evidently - those who've been around Wikipedia->Wikimedia so long they
know their way around and react with perplexing accusations [1] to
anyone pointing out that its present organisation is misleading and
confusing. So what then makes Meta a work wiki, if (as you said [2] )
they don't do the actual work on Meta?
- d.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship&dif…
(you answering a simple question with a long, long paragraph of
perplexing accusations and not answering the fairly simple question
asked)
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship&dif…
(me quoting you from IRC)
Censorship is a scare word that does not accurately describe the internal
debate over images. If hte government tells us not to print something, that
is censorship. If we decide not to print somethin because of our own
editorial standards, that is not censorship.
If we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously, and to be used as widely as
possible, then we need to hold ourselves to decent editorial standards.
That might mean taking some very small steps such as putting some content
behind a spoiler-like warning. This way, people know that reading the text
of articles will be school/work-safe, and they can make an informed decision
to view the images so-tagged.
>Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many
>times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of
>censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself,
>just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has
>been had, lets just levae it at that.
Johntex
those of you on the east coast, CBS news is about to air a thing on
the EB/Wikipedia debate. :-) I'm sure it will be available all over
the internet within the hour anyhow.
The blocking policy proposal to implement a new form of "semi-blocking" at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal
allowing logged in users to edit has been up for several months now. Is there
going to be any movement on implementing this soon?
Sigvat Stensholt a.k.a. "Sjakkalle"
I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia from a university connection
for over three months now, since the IP block stops traffic from the
entire state of Maine's library/school system. Are four-month blocks
really an accepted part of policy, for a system that blocks
established users along with anonymous users from contributing?
Charles Mathews wrote:
>I would call it a complete change from five years of getting the
>encyclopedia written. It bears repetition: the mission is to get the
>encyclopedia written, the free NPOV encyclopedia. Not to try to gather
>plaudits from classroom teachers. It's an old discussion here: GFDL
>means_someone else_ can perfectly well make the fork that is more
child-safe.
I disagree that the goal is to get an encyclopedia written. The goal is to
produce an encyclopedia that is as useful as possible to the biggest set of
people possible. Taking small steps to make the reference more usable in
schools and work-places is consistent with that goal.
Deciding which images might deserve a spoiler warning is no more a violation
of NPOV than deciding what fact is important enough to include, or deciding
what reference is worthy enough to cite. All of these are judgement calls.
We will continue to debate them for as long as the project is editable, no
doubt.
- Johntex