On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:29:30PM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Chad Perrin said:
While I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment on this matter, at least moreso than the converse, it seems blindingly obvious to me that the "accusation" in question was meant as an expression of a perceived trend, from one person's perspective.
I may have misread it, but Kevin's wording was as follows:
"I've come to the realization that people are searching out nude pictures to put in the 'pedia. They are looking to stir up trouble, mostly to make a point."
That seems to be a pretty specific accusation, aimed at a subset of those who upload images, specifically images involving nudity, accusing them of doing so with the intention of breaking Wikipedia policy.
I take that very seriously. It's an extremely damaging accusation, and if Kevin has evidence to support it he should make it public. If he doesn't well we'll know he's just hand-waving, indulging in attempt to denigrate those who have uploaded images involving nudity.
Whatever happened to an assumption of good faith? You're assuming bad faith on the part of KR here. I, for one, didn't interpret his comments to in any way involve an intended "denigration" of any individuals in particular, and only to make a generalized statement about behavioral trends that seems to fit with the sort of irresponsible behavior that is all too often endemic to the Internet as a whole. How about, before requiring he prove his "accusations", you prove that he intended any accusation?
Nitpicking asinine little details can be a two-way street. I'm almost embarrassed to be perceived as agreeing with you on the subject of whether or not there's anything to worry about in the posting of the Winslet image because of your tactics in trying to make a point.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]