To even consider that the guidelines are draconian also implies that they have been tried before. The question is that do such ideas work. The reply obviously is not everybody agrees that they work, and they don't want to go backwards repeat history.
We need new ideas and new systems developed to handle information without censorship and to put a definite bounds on "disreputable," as it (by past experience) may deemed to mean one thing or another thing from time to time. It is a decision by ArbCom, but it is not stable in implementation.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u... We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more "disreputable" until I am blocked.
Yes. That will certainly help the situation.
There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l