On 6/2/06, Jesse W <jessw(a)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