On 6/2/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:33 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
The promote statement was a rhetorically worded question, which implied a position based on the previous post which implied that any other action was disruption of wikipedia (which is a serious and blockable offense no less).
Thank you, that explains it. Promote was indeed the wrong word, but one that is an easy mistake to make when considering matters related to userboxes, as they have a great tendency to provoke such mistakes, blurring as they do the distinctions between userpages and public parts of the wiki, and between public expressions of personal attributes and promotion and advocacy of those attributes. This is yet another reason why userboxes are a troubling thing to both the community and the wiki.
The fact that user space exists at all to me is a distinction. The fact that outsiders may not make the distinction does not change the fact that it exists and had a specific purpose. If someone who did not realise that templates were "accommodated" for within a part of wikipedia which also accommodates other template objects used in the encyclopedia, discovered a user page with a belief statement, and a user page with a belief userbox, they are not likely to be any less inflamed by the statement than they may be by the userbox. Even stating interest in satanism is likely to provoke a person who would have been affected by the userbox.
The word promote may not have been the right word, however, the action which based the wikipedia definition of inflammatory and divisive in the american christian way of life has not been rebutted.
I realize this. I have no comment either way on that subject at this time.
It is a complex issue, I respect that. However, I will say something on it, more for to further articulate myself than anything else.
Having said what I did above, it is not simply a reason to delete the ones with beliefs just because an outsider may think a certain way. Maybe we should be questioning the whole idea of having any allowance of statement about anything on user pages. It is either that or risk a long unhealthy internal discussion on just what other things are possibly inflammatory and divisive. Simply changing userboxes to "interest" as opposed to belief userboxes will not change anything as the subject is what is provoking responses, not the word "believe".
I didn't actually say that wikipedia was not allowing people to edit based on their background. I apologise if it came across that way.
Understood. But if Wikipedia is not preventing people from editing based on their background, but instead, not providing them with pre-made templates to express one aspect of that background - I don't really see the connection here. You imply that not providing a pre-made template to express every aspect of every contributor would be a violation of our principle of encouraging edits by any serious, good-faith contributor. I don't see where you justify this.
As I said above, the providing of a template does not have any greater effect over text based statements of belief. It is still wikipedia allowing a statement of belief. I did not mean to say that wikipedia should necessarily provide a premade template for ever aspect, however, I did mean to say that deleting just because editors or viewers of a certain background will be inflamed by the statement does not have precedent on wikipedia. We allow the most inflammatory thing possible, ie, the danish cartoons depicting Allah and Mohammed. If the encylopedia can detail such an inflammatory thing why can't user pages have simple statements of belief in long established religions.
It reeks of American Christian bias to me. (And for those who discount the cartoons just because they have been discussed previously, Don't!, they are for the time being the single most inflammatory thing available)
Peter Ansell