Brion, I'm puzzled at your reply, particular about your 'effective opening argument' comment. The loss of those pictures was a result of the use of a clearly offensive name, CrucifiedChrist. But that name has already caused offence to Wikipedia users and contributors. Yet you seem to be only bothered by the loss of the pictures, and not by the unambiguous offensiveness of the user nickname, which with a logic I cannot fathom, you regard as a 'huge improvement'!!!
People who complained to me said they would not complain publicly because their views would not be taken seriously. I've been sending messages back telling people that it is OK to complain, that their views will be taken as seriously, and they will be shown the same respect as everyone else. Your continuing inability to see any problem with this nickname makes me think that maybe they are right; that mocking their beliefs is OK, because religious believers are perceived as second class citizens in terms of causing offence. Poor and corny sexual puns are 'of course' offensive. But mocking someone they regard as the Son of God isn't. Is this the latest political correctness? As a non religious persion myself, I find your attitude and complete inability to see the scale of the offence caused puzzling, to put it at its politest. I thought pluralism is concerned with showing similar respect to all sides equally. Or are religious sensitivities, specifically sensitivities towards christians, less important that other sensitivities, specifically ones to do with oral sex?
Please explain why causing offensive to religious people is a 'huge improvement' on a pun on oral sex.
JT.
From: Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Distasteful names - CrucifiedChrist Date: 28 Jan 2003 13:01:37 -0800
On mar, 2003-01-28 at 11:53, james duffy wrote:
One of the reasons was that the person who has ownership of the pictures logged on to Wiki, saw references to CrucifiedChrist and took offence, arguing that if that is the standard of contributions and contributors made to Wiki, Wiki obviously isn't a serious attempt at an encyclopedia and he was withdrawing permission which he up to then was
on
the brink of giving.
That would have made a _much_ more effective opening argument -- thank you for following up with details.
Unfortunately, since Wikipedia didn't adopt a 'use your real name or post anonymously' policy, the selection of nicks, and the process of deciding what is and isn't acceptable, is always going to be arbitrary and ex post facto. (Does "Tokerboy" give the professional appearence we want to present to potential IP donors? Or even "Maveric149"?)
Cf. http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?UseRealNames on MeatballWiki.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com) << signature.asc >>
_________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
On mar, 2003-01-28 at 13:51, james duffy wrote:
Brion, I'm puzzled at your reply, particular about your 'effective opening argument' comment.
Allow me to compare, using an exaggerated form purely for rhetorical effect: "I'm the only person ever to complain about how offensive this is! Ban it now!" with "Wikipedia has lost access to a valuable resource because this user name made the project look extremely unprofessional."
The loss of those pictures was a result of the use of a clearly offensive name, CrucifiedChrist. But that name has already caused offence to Wikipedia users and contributors. Yet you seem to be only bothered by the loss of the pictures, and not by the unambiguous offensiveness of the user nickname, which with a logic I cannot fathom, you regard as a 'huge improvement'!!!
Offense is only taken, not given. There is no objective measure of offensiveness that I can perform; actual reactions and quanitifable results as to how the project is affected are much more convincing to me.
People who complained to me said they would not complain publicly because their views would not be taken seriously. I've been sending messages back telling people that it is OK to complain, that their views will be taken as seriously, and they will be shown the same respect as everyone else.
Thank you for doing so -- we can't take seriously a complaint that is never received!
Your continuing inability to see any problem with this nickname makes me think that maybe they are right; that mocking their beliefs is OK, because religious believers are perceived as second class citizens in terms of causing offence. Poor and corny sexual puns are 'of course' offensive. But mocking someone they regard as the Son of God isn't. Is this the latest political correctness?
You clearly have misunderstood my position. I am offended by neither corny sexual puns nor by co-opting of religious terminology, but I consider both to be in the category of things that make the project look bad, along with silly usernames in general. If they make the project look bad enough, or they provoke enough trouble within the ranks, that it is detrimental to the project, I'm all in favor of kicking them out and letting us all get back to work.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
it is detrimental to the project, I'm all in favor of kicking them out and letting us all get back to work.
I concur, with the caveat that in all but a few shocking cases that only a twisted mind such as mine could think up anyway, ha ha, I don't think that someone coming in with an offensive nickname is enough to ban the *person*, particularly on a first offense. We can just tell them that they need to pick a more professional handle.
--Jimbo
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:44:33PM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I concur, with the caveat that in all but a few shocking cases that only a twisted mind such as mine could think up anyway, ha ha, I don't think that someone coming in with an offensive nickname is enough to ban the *person*, particularly on a first offense. We can just tell them that they need to pick a more professional handle.
I am in favor of renaming them summarily. Or at least changing their "nickname" that shows up in recent changes, while leaving the actual login name itself alone.
Jonathan
Jonathan Walther wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:44:33PM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I concur, with the caveat that in all but a few shocking cases that only a twisted mind such as mine could think up anyway, ha ha, I don't think that someone coming in with an offensive nickname is enough to ban the *person*, particularly on a first offense. We can just tell them that they need to pick a more professional handle.
I am in favor of renaming them summarily. Or at least changing their "nickname" that shows up in recent changes, while leaving the actual login name itself alone.
I would at least notify a newbie that some Wikipedians consider the name to be offensive, and give him a day or two to choose something more suitable. I'm not personally offended by these names, but I do find them infantile. I would also advise the offender that even the most tolerant Wikipedians may consider that person's contributions unreliable, and subject to closer scrutiny.
Eclecticology
How can we really determine that the name is "unambiguous"ly "offensive"? Perhaps the person is a very religious Christian. Zoe james duffy jtdirl@hotmail.com wrote:Brion, I'm puzzled at your reply, particular about your 'effective opening argument' comment. The loss of those pictures was a result of the use of a clearly offensive name, CrucifiedChrist. But that name has already caused offence to Wikipedia users and contributors. Yet you seem to be only bothered by the loss of the pictures, and not by the unambiguous offensiveness of the user nickname, which with a logic I cannot fathom, you regard as a 'huge improvement'!!!
People who complained to me said they would not complain publicly because their views would not be taken seriously. I've been sending messages back telling people that it is OK to complain, that their views will be taken as seriously, and they will be shown the same respect as everyone else. Your continuing inability to see any problem with this nickname makes me think that maybe they are right; that mocking their beliefs is OK, because religious believers are perceived as second class citizens in terms of causing offence. Poor and corny sexual puns are 'of course' offensive. But mocking someone they regard as the Son of God isn't. Is this the latest political correctness? As a non religious persion myself, I find your attitude and complete inability to see the scale of the offence caused puzzling, to put it at its politest. I thought pluralism is concerned with showing similar respect to all sides equally. Or are religious sensitivities, specifically sensitivities towards christians, less important that other sensitivities, specifically ones to do with oral sex?
Please explain why causing offensive to religious people is a 'huge improvement' on a pun on oral sex.
JT.
From: Brion Vibber
Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Distasteful names - CrucifiedChrist Date: 28 Jan 2003 13:01:37 -0800
On mar, 2003-01-28 at 11:53, james duffy wrote:
One of the reasons was that the person who has ownership of the pictures logged on to Wiki, saw references to CrucifiedChrist and took offence, arguing that if that is the standard of contributions and contributors made to Wiki, Wiki obviously isn't a serious attempt at an encyclopedia and he was withdrawing permission which he up to then was
on
the brink of giving.
That would have made a _much_ more effective opening argument -- thank you for following up with details.
Unfortunately, since Wikipedia didn't adopt a 'use your real name or post anonymously' policy, the selection of nicks, and the process of deciding what is and isn't acceptable, is always going to be arbitrary and ex post facto. (Does "Tokerboy" give the professional appearence we want to present to potential IP donors? Or even "Maveric149"?)
Cf. http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?UseRealNames on MeatballWiki.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com) << signature.asc >>
_________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now