I just came across the following userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14 which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently, depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the Great Userboxes War. Michael
On 11/30/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I just came across the following userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14 which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently, depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the Great Userboxes War. Michael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The userboxes aren't templates, so they don't fall under T1. The US has nearly total protection of free speech, so espousing beliefs, even Naziism, isn't illegal.
On 30/11/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
The userboxes aren't templates, so they don't fall under T1. The US has nearly total protection of free speech, so espousing beliefs, even Naziism, isn't illegal.
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
The userboxes aren't templates, so they don't fall under T1. The US has nearly total protection of free speech, so espousing beliefs, even Naziism, isn't illegal.
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
True, Wikipedia can have rules in addition to the law. However, what are discrimination laws like in the US? Could banning Nazis get the Foundation into legal difficulties?
On 05/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
True, Wikipedia can have rules in addition to the law. However, what are discrimination laws like in the US? Could banning Nazis get the Foundation into legal difficulties?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or even an American. That said, it appears to me that Wikipedia is a privately-operated members' club, and is entitled to specify what is allowed not to be said or done on its premises, much as the Britney Spears Fan Club is entitled to kick out people who insist that Christina Aguilera is cooler. Neither is a violation of US law.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or even an American. That said, it appears to me that Wikipedia is a privately-operated members' club, and is entitled to specify what is allowed not to be said or done on its premises, much as the Britney Spears Fan Club is entitled to kick out people who insist that Christina Aguilera is cooler. Neither is a violation of US law.
Generally your tastes in pop music are not protected by law. Your political affiliations may be. Like you, I am neither a lawyer nor an American, so I don't know what the relevant laws are, however I wouldn't be surprised if banning Nazis was illegal in some countries.
On 05/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Like you, I am neither a lawyer nor an American, so I don't know what the relevant laws are, however I wouldn't be surprised if banning Nazis was illegal in some countries.
Then let us be grateful that neither of us live in those countries. :)
Then let us be grateful that neither of us live in those countries. :)
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure where UK (my home country) discrimination law stands on the matter... I would support laws against discriminating against any political group. If you allow one group to be discriminated against, you end up having to allow all groups to be discriminated against, which is only a few steps away from political leaders throwing their opponents in prison.
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 05:07, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Then let us be grateful that neither of us live in those countries. :)
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure where UK (my home country) discrimination law stands on the matter... I would support laws against discriminating against any political group. If you allow one group to be discriminated against, you end up having to allow all groups to be discriminated against, which is only a few steps away from political leaders throwing their opponents in prison.
There's a huge difference between discrimination done by the government and discrimination done by private individuals or entities.
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 05/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
True, Wikipedia can have rules in addition to the law. However, what are discrimination laws like in the US? Could banning Nazis get the Foundation into legal difficulties?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or even an American. That said, it appears to me that Wikipedia is a privately-operated members' club, and is entitled to specify what is allowed not to be said or done on its premises, much as the Britney Spears Fan Club is entitled to kick out people who insist that Christina Aguilera is cooler. Neither is a violation of US law.
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
Might depend on tax law. If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years since I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private foundations can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active discrimination. In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy of discrimination -- the issue at hand focuses around the banning of a troll.
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 30/11/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
The userboxes aren't templates, so they don't fall under T1. The US has nearly total protection of free speech, so espousing beliefs, even
Naziism,
isn't illegal.
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
Are you speaking "virtually" as in "it's on the 'net", or physically?" Last I saw, Wiki was a Private Foundation und the Internal Revenue Code of the US, filing its tax forms (990's) from Florida.
On 05/12/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
Are you speaking "virtually" as in "it's on the 'net", or physically?" Last I saw, Wiki was a Private Foundation und the Internal Revenue Code of the US, filing its tax forms (990's) from Florida.
If you read my statement more carefully, you will notice that I did not say "are *in* the United States".
(ObOldTimerGrouch: "Wiki" has long been the proper name of the WikiWikiWeb, not Wikipedia.)
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 05/12/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
Are you speaking "virtually" as in "it's on the 'net", or
physically?" Last
I saw, Wiki was a Private Foundation und the Internal Revenue Code of
the
US, filing its tax forms (990's) from Florida.
If you read my statement more carefully, you will notice that I did not say "are *in* the United States".
(ObOldTimerGrouch: "Wiki" has long been the proper name of the WikiWikiWeb, not Wikipedia.)
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
My bad, I mentally inserted the "in". You're correct in that respect -- Wikipedia is *not* the US. However, by filing its tax returns from Florida, it is subject to the laws of the US, although for internet policies, any other country can place its own restrictions/regulations on Wikipedia as a "virtual" entity.
I guess all of us non-old-timers (under two years or so?) are guilty then -- pretty much all of us refer to it as Wiki.
On 12/5/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
I guess all of us non-old-timers (under two years or so?) are guilty then -- pretty much all of us refer to it as Wiki.
No.
Steve
Earle Martin wrote:
On 30/11/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
The userboxes aren't templates, so they don't fall under T1. The US has nearly total protection of free speech, so espousing beliefs, even Naziism, isn't illegal.
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
In the immortal words of Essjay,
Wikipedia has no right to free speech. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."; we are not Congress, we are the cabal.
On 05/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Earle Martin wrote:
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
In the immortal words of Essjay,
Wikipedia has no right to free speech. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."; we are not Congress, we are the cabal.
Which is exactly the point that I was making. Although I must correct you on one point: there is of course no cabal.
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 05/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Earle Martin wrote:
As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are the United States.
In the immortal words of Essjay,
Wikipedia has no right to free speech. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."; we are not Congress, we are the cabal.
Which is exactly the point that I was making. Although I must correct you on one point: there is of course no cabal.
Of course not. fnord
On 11/30/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I just came across the following userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14 which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently, depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense against law.
Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably legal in the UK.
Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the Great Userboxes War. Michael
Ignore them there is nothing to be gained by feeding the !trolls.
I believe France does too, but that's totally off-topic.
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably legal in the UK.
Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we might as well let it be. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have a feeling that most of central Europe has banned any sort of pro-Nazi sentiment from being expressed publicly.
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably legal in the UK.
Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we might as well let it be. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Is this user editing nazi-related articles or with a pro-nazi POV? If not, I think we can safely ignore them.
Mgm
On 11/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I have a feeling that most of central Europe has banned any sort of pro-Nazi sentiment from being expressed publicly.
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably legal in the UK.
Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we might as well let it be. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Even if he were editing, we shouldn't do anything about it. People are allowed to have POVs, even if they don't agree with the vast majority of Wikipedians (and linked with people who killed millions). Preventing him from editing Nazi related pages would be like disallowing Democrats from editing [[Democratic Party (United States)]].
On 11/30/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Is this user editing nazi-related articles or with a pro-nazi POV? If not, I think we can safely ignore them.
Mgm
On 11/30/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I have a feeling that most of central Europe has banned any sort of pro-Nazi sentiment from being expressed publicly.
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably legal in the UK.
Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we might as well let it be. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have a feeling that most of central Europe has banned any sort of pro-Nazi sentiment from being expressed publicly.
Austria might have done, but other than that, I don't think so. Reading the relevant Wikipedia articles shows that quite a few European countries have Neo-nazi parties (some even gaining seats in parliaments occasionally), so there certainly isn't a widespread ban.
On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably legal in the UK.
Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we might as well let it be.
Bullshit. The only reason to display that userbox is to cause disruption. Ban the idiot, delete the userpage, no angst required.
-Phil
If you ignore it, you won't be disrupted. It takes two to cause a conflict.
On 11/30/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably legal in the UK.
Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we might as well let it be.
Bullshit. The only reason to display that userbox is to cause disruption. Ban the idiot, delete the userpage, no angst required.
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/30/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Bullshit. The only reason to display that userbox is to cause disruption. Ban the idiot, delete the userpage, no angst required.
Banning take effort. Better to ignore and wait untill they go away.
Banning take effort. Better to ignore and wait untill they go away.
I can't see what grounds we can ban them on anyway. They are perfectly entitled to be a Nazi, we may not like it, but "I don't like you" wasn't on the list of reasons to ban someone last time I checked.
We don't ban people for stating other political affiliations on their user pages, so we can't ban Nazi's for doing it.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably legal in the UK.
Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we might as well let it be.
The use of insignia of organizations that have been banned in Germany (like the Nazi swastika or the arrow cross) may also be illegal in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, France, Brazil and other countries, depending on context. In Germany, the applicable law is paragraph 86a of the criminal code (StGB), in Poland – Art. 256 of the criminal code (Dz.U. 1997 nr 88 poz. 553).
(Bonus points if tell me where it came from)
On 11/30/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably legal in the UK.
Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we might as well let it be.
The use of insignia of organizations that have been banned in Germany (like the Nazi swastika or the arrow cross) may also be illegal in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, France, Brazil and other countries, depending on context. In Germany, the applicable law is paragraph 86a of the criminal code (StGB), in Poland – Art. 256 of the criminal code (Dz.U. 1997 nr 88 poz. 553).
(Bonus points if tell me where it came from)
[[Swastika]]?
--humblefool
Michael Bimmler wrote:
I just came across the following userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14 which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently, depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the Great Userboxes War.
I indef blocked and deleted the page. Why are we even talking about this?
--Jimbo
Hee hee. I love godkings.
On 11/30/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Michael Bimmler wrote:
I just came across the following userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14 which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently, depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the Great Userboxes War.
I indef blocked and deleted the page. Why are we even talking about this?
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I indef blocked and deleted the page. Why are we even talking about this?
Because Wikipedia doesn't generally ban users based on political affiliation? Banning someone for being a Nazi when it isn't illegal and they aren't causing any disruption is discrimination, pure and simple.
On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I indef blocked and deleted the page. Why are we even talking about this?
Because Wikipedia doesn't generally ban users based on political affiliation? Banning someone for being a Nazi when it isn't illegal and they aren't causing any disruption is discrimination, pure and simple.
Nobody was banned for being a Nazi. They were banned for proclaiming it on their userpage. Which is disruptive. You are welcome to edit Wikipedia as a Nazi, or as a pedophile, or as anyone else. You are, however, expected not to use Wikipedia as a platform for proclaiming controversial views.
What's hard here?
-Phil
Nobody was banned for being a Nazi. They were banned for proclaiming it on their userpage. Which is disruptive. You are welcome to edit Wikipedia as a Nazi, or as a pedophile, or as anyone else. You are, however, expected not to use Wikipedia as a platform for proclaiming controversial views.
What's hard here?
Is everyone displaying any of the userboxes on these pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRBerry/German_userbox_solution#Political_... going to banned?
The only reason I can see for treating Nazis differently from anyone else is because people don't like Nazis. It boils down to banning someone for being unpopular.
If Wikipedia were based in Germany, it would be an obvious ban for breaking the law, but Wikipedia is under US jurisdiction, and the US doesn't have any such law.
How many people does a regime have to kill before proclaiming your association with it is a bannable offense?
It bothers me that we consider it our place to draw that line. Can we please just ban political userboxes already, and avoid having to make calls about why being a Nazi is so much worse than supporting [YOUR LEAST FAVORITE REGIME HERE]?
Tony/GTB
From: "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:28:32 +0000
Nobody was banned for being a Nazi. They were banned for proclaiming it on their userpage. Which is disruptive. You are welcome to edit Wikipedia as a Nazi, or as a pedophile, or as anyone else. You are, however, expected not to use Wikipedia as a platform for proclaiming controversial views.
What's hard here?
Is everyone displaying any of the userboxes on these pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRBerry/German_userbox_solution#Political_... going to banned?
The only reason I can see for treating Nazis differently from anyone else is because people don't like Nazis. It boils down to banning someone for being unpopular.
If Wikipedia were based in Germany, it would be an obvious ban for breaking the law, but Wikipedia is under US jurisdiction, and the US doesn't have any such law. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends list. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spa...
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
How many people does a regime have to kill before proclaiming your association with it is a bannable offense?
Well since we don't ban declarations of christanity and the Taiping Rebellion killed over 20 million I guess something in excess of 30 million.
On the admin noticeboard there's discussion about a user who has created illustrative comics, which basically illustrate the summary of an article, an example can be see here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tony-clifton-web-rev.JPG . I've made the suggestion that maybe we could get the artist to create caricatures of living people, and thus perhaps solve the problem of using copyrighted images in articles of people simply to illustrate the person.
On 11/30/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
On the admin noticeboard there's discussion about a user who has created illustrative comics, which basically illustrate the summary of an article, an example can be see here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tony-clifton-web-rev.JPG . I've made the suggestion that maybe we could get the artist to create caricatures of living people, and thus perhaps solve the problem of using copyrighted images in articles of people simply to illustrate the person.
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.2/560 - Release Date: 30/11/06
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You, sir, are brilliant!
On 12/1/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
On the admin noticeboard there's discussion about a user who has created illustrative comics, which basically illustrate the summary of an article, an example can be see here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tony-clifton-web-rev.JPG . I've made the suggestion that maybe we could get the artist to create caricatures of living people, and thus perhaps solve the problem of using copyrighted images in articles of people simply to illustrate the person.
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.2/560 - Release Date: 30/11/06
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You, sir, are brilliant! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Block wrote:
On the admin noticeboard there's discussion about a user who has created illustrative comics, which basically illustrate the summary of an article, an example can be see here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tony-clifton-web-rev.JPG . I've made the suggestion that maybe we could get the artist to create caricatures of living people, and thus perhaps solve the problem of using copyrighted images in articles of people simply to illustrate the person.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Greg_Williams
Much as I hate meaningless fuss over copyright, aren't these comics incorrectly licensed? The text is directly taken from Wikipedia articles - presumably under the GFDL. But the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA, with no reference to either the GFDL or fair use.
That aside, they are quite brilliant.
the wub
On 12/1/06, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Much as I hate meaningless fuss over copyright, aren't these comics incorrectly licensed? The text is directly taken from Wikipedia articles - presumably under the GFDL. But the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA, with no reference to either the GFDL or fair use.
Anthere suggested at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greg_Williams#License that the author should claim fair use. But Commons doesn't allow fair use...
Angela.
On 12/1/06, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Much as I hate meaningless fuss over copyright, aren't these comics incorrectly licensed? The text is directly taken from Wikipedia articles - presumably under the GFDL. But the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA, with no reference to either the GFDL or fair use.
That aside, they are quite brilliant.
the wub
Presumably text and images under different licenses can be combined to form an aggregate work. Wikipedia articles do this all the time.
Anthony
Then both licenses should apply. But this is pretty clearly a derivative, not aggregate work.
On 12/1/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/1/06, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Much as I hate meaningless fuss over copyright, aren't these comics incorrectly licensed? The text is directly taken from Wikipedia articles
presumably under the GFDL. But the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA, with
no
reference to either the GFDL or fair use.
That aside, they are quite brilliant.
the wub
Presumably text and images under different licenses can be combined to form an aggregate work. Wikipedia articles do this all the time.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Then both licenses should apply. But this is pretty clearly a derivative, not aggregate work.
Aggregate works under the GFDL almost always are derivative works.
In this case yes, it's clearly a derivative, but it's not clear whether or not it's an aggregate (per the definition under the GFDL). There really are no precedents as to what an aggregate is under the GFDL. If mixing images and text into an integrated work is not considered an aggregate under the GFDL, then the majority of Wikipedia's articles which contain images are in violation of the GFDL.
This is not really a can of worms worth opening.
Anthony
On 12/1/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/1/06, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Much as I hate meaningless fuss over copyright, aren't these comics incorrectly licensed? The text is directly taken from Wikipedia articles
presumably under the GFDL. But the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA, with
no
reference to either the GFDL or fair use.
That aside, they are quite brilliant.
the wub
Presumably text and images under different licenses can be combined to form an aggregate work. Wikipedia articles do this all the time.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There's definitely a clear difference between an HTML page with img tags and a jpeg cartoon.
On 12/3/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Then both licenses should apply. But this is pretty clearly a
derivative,
not aggregate work.
Aggregate works under the GFDL almost always are derivative works.
In this case yes, it's clearly a derivative, but it's not clear whether or not it's an aggregate (per the definition under the GFDL). There really are no precedents as to what an aggregate is under the GFDL. If mixing images and text into an integrated work is not considered an aggregate under the GFDL, then the majority of Wikipedia's articles which contain images are in violation of the GFDL.
This is not really a can of worms worth opening.
Anthony
On 12/1/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/1/06, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Much as I hate meaningless fuss over copyright, aren't these comics incorrectly licensed? The text is directly taken from Wikipedia
articles
presumably under the GFDL. But the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA,
with
no
reference to either the GFDL or fair use.
That aside, they are quite brilliant.
the wub
Presumably text and images under different licenses can be combined to form an aggregate work. Wikipedia articles do this all the time.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/1/06, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Much as I hate meaningless fuss over copyright, aren't these comics incorrectly licensed? The text is directly taken from Wikipedia articles - presumably under the GFDL. But the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA, with no reference to either the GFDL or fair use.
That aside, they are quite brilliant.
the wub _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't think he's actually copying and pasting the text into the images. He's using the ideas, yes, but those can't be copyrighted.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:34:19 -0800, "Tony Jacobs" gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
It bothers me that we consider it our place to draw that line. Can we please just ban political userboxes already, and avoid having to make calls about why being a Nazi is so much worse than supporting [YOUR LEAST FAVORITE REGIME HERE]?
Not even close.
That user's page contained:
(Slipknot) This User is a Maggot (GRRR!) This User thinks copyright/fair use is a bitch (image) This User disagrees with the existance of WP:Point because Wikipedia is not censored (swastika) This User is a Nazi (image of raised middle finger) This User's middle name is offensive and he honestly couldn't care less about you (BOMB!) The only sport this User plays is Yo Momma
The user has less than a dozen mainspace edits, several of which were re-introducing unsourced images removed from the article by others.
The user has edited mainspace once since September.
The user has a history of copyright violations and has been blocked for vandalism.
We have already wasted more time discussing this than the user is worth to the project, on that evidence. It's worth debating the likes of SPUI and nobs01 because they are as productive as they can be maddening. This one? I think not.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/30/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
We have already wasted more time discussing this than the user is worth to the project, on that evidence. It's worth debating the likes of SPUI and nobs01 because they are as productive as they can be maddening. This one? I think not.
Guy (JzG)
I had thought of a userbox that would read, "This user survived 12 months in the Wikigulag", but its not worth all the crap it would engender.
nobs01
From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:36:20 +0000
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:34:19 -0800, "Tony Jacobs" gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
It bothers me that we consider it our place to draw that line. Can we please just ban political userboxes already, and avoid having to make
calls
about why being a Nazi is so much worse than supporting [YOUR LEAST
FAVORITE
REGIME HERE]?
Not even close.
That user's page contained:
(Slipknot) This User is a Maggot (GRRR!) This User thinks copyright/fair use is a bitch (image) This User disagrees with the existance of WP:Point because Wikipedia is not censored (swastika) This User is a Nazi (image of raised middle finger) This User's middle name is offensive and he honestly couldn't care less about you (BOMB!) The only sport this User plays is Yo Momma
The user has less than a dozen mainspace edits, several of which were re-introducing unsourced images removed from the article by others.
The user has edited mainspace once since September.
The user has a history of copyright violations and has been blocked for vandalism.
We have already wasted more time discussing this than the user is worth to the project, on that evidence. It's worth debating the likes of SPUI and nobs01 because they are as productive as they can be maddening. This one? I think not.
Personally, I wasn't discussing that user at all, but the principle of tolerating some political userboxes and not others.
GTB
_________________________________________________________________ Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
Tony Jacobs wrote: <snip>
Personally, I wasn't discussing that user at all, but the principle of tolerating some political userboxes and not others.
I demand that every instance of "GOP" be a piped link to whichever bloody stupid party it stands for. We're not all 'Merkins, y'know?
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Tony Jacobs wrote:
<snip> > Personally, I wasn't discussing that user at all, but the principle of > tolerating some political userboxes and not others. >
I demand that every instance of "GOP" be a piped link to whichever bloody stupid party it stands for. We're not all 'Merkins, y'know?
Not that you actually asked, but that would be the Republican party. IIRC, GOP stands for "Grand Old Party".
Your point about Americanisms (or would that be United Stationisms?) is well made.
-Rich Holton
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody was banned for being a Nazi. They were banned for proclaiming it on their userpage. Which is disruptive. You are welcome to edit Wikipedia as a Nazi, or as a pedophile, or as anyone else. You are, however, expected not to use Wikipedia as a platform for proclaiming controversial views.
What's hard here?
Is everyone displaying any of the userboxes on these pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRBerry/German_userbox_solution#Political_... going to banned?
The only reason I can see for treating Nazis differently from anyone else is because people don't like Nazis. It boils down to banning someone for being unpopular.
If Wikipedia were based in Germany, it would be an obvious ban for breaking the law, but Wikipedia is under US jurisdiction, and the US doesn't have any such law.
I would assume that the reasoning is that the negative image potentially created by tolerance of such a user box outweighs any free-speech rights (besides, wiki under the TOS has set its own limits on free speech as do most web-based institutions). Note: this is an attempt at an explanation, not a taking of sides, so no hate mail. ;)
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
I would assume that the reasoning is that the negative image potentially created by tolerance of such a user box outweighs any free-speech rights
Too late it is already known we allow pedophiles to edit.
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Is everyone displaying any of the userboxes on these pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRBerry/German_userbox_solution#Political_... going to banned?
The only reason I can see for treating Nazis differently from anyone else is because people don't like Nazis. It boils down to banning someone for being unpopular.
If Wikipedia were based in Germany, it would be an obvious ban for breaking the law, but Wikipedia is under US jurisdiction, and the US doesn't have any such law.
Do you believe that the Nazi party is no different from any of those other parties, or is this just a cheap rhetorical device? Be honest.
Do you also not see the difference between free speech in the public sphere and in the private sphere? While the principles of and laws regarding free speech should of course apply to Nazis like they do to everyone else, Wikipedia is not obligated by those principles and laws to provide a soapbox for Nazis.
On 30/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Do you believe that the Nazi party is no different from any of those other parties, or is this just a cheap rhetorical device? Be honest.
The difference between the Nazis and many other regimes is in degree, not type. Where is the line drawn?
On 11/30/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
The difference between the Nazis and many other regimes is in degree, not type. Where is the line drawn?
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
Isn't it pretty far outside of our purview to be providing a soapbox for some controversial political parties and not others? Why do we allow any of this crap? What justifies allowing people to proclaim their affiliation with one party and not another? I'll agree that Nazi is beyond the pale, but where, precisely, is "the pale"?
I believe (or hope, perhaps) that Wikipedia administrators are rational adults and capable of discerning the difference between an acceptable use of a Wikipedia userpage and the unacceptable use of it as a soapbox for views "beyond the pale", and as such can discern the difference between a normal, sane political party and one that advocates the extermination of whole categories of other human beings.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
I believe (or hope, perhaps) that Wikipedia administrators are rational adults and capable of discerning the difference between an acceptable use of a Wikipedia userpage and the unacceptable use of it as a soapbox for views "beyond the pale", and as such can discern the difference between a normal, sane political party and one that advocates the extermination of whole categories of other human beings.
There are very few pacifist political parties. In this case I notice that jimbo missed the user subpage that experence suggests is more likely to cause trouble.
On 30/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
I believe (or hope, perhaps) that Wikipedia administrators are rational adults and capable of discerning the difference between an acceptable use of a Wikipedia userpage and the unacceptable use of it as a soapbox for views "beyond the pale", and as such can discern the difference between a normal, sane political party and one that advocates the extermination of whole categories of other human beings.
The views of some users which are considered normal by most will be considered "beyond the pale" by some. Whether views are considered "beyond the pale" largely depends upon the experiences of the person and the culture they live in.
This discussion is null anyway since the user doesn't seem to be using the userbox in seriousness. It seems to be some kind of in-your-face humour.
On 11/30/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion is null anyway since the user doesn't seem to be using the userbox in seriousness. It seems to be some kind of in-your-face humour.
Of course. And that kind of trolling is pretty much covered under Wikipedia rules prohibiting disruption.
On 30/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion is null anyway since the user doesn't seem to be using the userbox in seriousness. It seems to be some kind of in-your-face humour.
Of course. And that kind of trolling is pretty much covered under Wikipedia rules prohibiting disruption.
Or specifically, the "don't be a blatant dick" subclause.
- d.
The only problem with fighting trolls is that it encourages them.
On 11/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion is null anyway since the user doesn't seem to be using the userbox in seriousness. It seems to be some kind of in-your-face humour.
Of course. And that kind of trolling is pretty much covered under Wikipedia rules prohibiting disruption.
Or specifically, the "don't be a blatant dick" subclause.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thursday 30 November 2006 16:16, Rob wrote:
On 11/30/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion is null anyway since the user doesn't seem to be using the userbox in seriousness. It seems to be some kind of in-your-face humour.
Of course. And that kind of trolling is pretty much covered under Wikipedia rules prohibiting disruption.
How was it "disruptive"? What actual problems did it cause?
And what better tie-in than Naziism. Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh...
I think I'll be deleting my political-geared userboxes, just to be safe.
On 11/30/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And what better tie-in than Naziism. Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/30/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And what better tie-in than Naziism. Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh...
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I think I'll be deleting my political-geared userboxes, just to be safe.
I'm up for deleting all userboxes, but that's neither here nor there.
-humblefool
I think Wikipedia would be better if categories were done in the style of userboxen.
On 11/30/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And what better tie-in than Naziism. Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh...
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I think I'll be deleting my political-geared userboxes, just to be safe.
I'm up for deleting all userboxes, but that's neither here nor there.
-humblefool _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Could you elaborate?
--Ryan
On 12/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I think Wikipedia would be better if categories were done in the style of userboxen.
On 11/30/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And what better tie-in than Naziism. Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh...
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I think I'll be deleting my political-geared userboxes, just to be safe.
I'm up for deleting all userboxes, but that's neither here nor there.
-humblefool _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I was kidding. But imagine at the bottom of an article instead of just listing the categories it belonged to in "boring" text each category had its own pretty colored box with some goofy icon.
That would be AWESOME.
Again, I'm not being serious.
On 12/1/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Could you elaborate?
--Ryan
On 12/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I think Wikipedia would be better if categories were done in the style
of
userboxen.
On 11/30/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And what better tie-in than Naziism. Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh...
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I think I'll be deleting my political-geared userboxes, just to be
safe.
I'm up for deleting all userboxes, but that's neither here nor there.
-humblefool _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And we would have a standard look or oversight or anything, so categories could all determine their own colors! Think of [[Category:Military History]] with a pink box, large white text, and an image of a drill instructor yelling at the camera!
Awesome idea. Let's implement it immediately. --humblefool
On 12/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I was kidding. But imagine at the bottom of an article instead of just listing the categories it belonged to in "boring" text each category had its own pretty colored box with some goofy icon.
That would be AWESOME.
Again, I'm not being serious.
On 12/1/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Could you elaborate?
--Ryan
On 12/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I think Wikipedia would be better if categories were done in the style
of
userboxen.
On 11/30/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And what better tie-in than Naziism. Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh...
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I think I'll be deleting my political-geared userboxes, just to be
safe.
I'm up for deleting all userboxes, but that's neither here nor there.
-humblefool _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/2/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I was kidding. But imagine at the bottom of an article instead of just listing the categories it belonged to in "boring" text each category had its own pretty colored box with some goofy icon.
That would be AWESOME.
Again, I'm not being serious.
May not be a bad idea. Something similar happens elsewiki with portals:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_des_d%C3%A9mocrates_socialistes
Note the two portal links down the bottom. Is there a reason we don't do this? Personally I never ever see portals, because I never come in the front door. Does anyone use portals?
Steve
On 12/1/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I was kidding. But imagine at the bottom of an article instead of just listing the categories it belonged to in "boring" text each category had
its
own pretty colored box with some goofy icon.
That would be AWESOME.
Again, I'm not being serious.
May not be a bad idea. Something similar happens elsewiki with portals:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_des_d%C3%A9mocrates_socialistes
Note the two portal links down the bottom. Is there a reason we don't do this? Personally I never ever see portals, because I never come in the front door. Does anyone use portals?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We have Template:Portal, which is linked to at the general topic pages for which there's a portal.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/2/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I was kidding. But imagine at the bottom of an article instead of just listing the categories it belonged to in "boring" text each category had its own pretty colored box with some goofy icon.
That would be AWESOME.
Again, I'm not being serious.
May not be a bad idea. Something similar happens elsewiki with portals:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_des_d%C3%A9mocrates_socialistes
Note the two portal links down the bottom. Is there a reason we don't do this? Personally I never ever see portals, because I never come in the front door. Does anyone use portals?
Newspapers occasionally point people to our Cricket portal...
Oh, thank goodness.
On 12/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I was kidding. But imagine at the bottom of an article instead of just listing the categories it belonged to in "boring" text each category had its own pretty colored box with some goofy icon.
That would be AWESOME.
Again, I'm not being serious.
On 12/1/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Could you elaborate?
--Ryan
On 12/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I think Wikipedia would be better if categories were done in the style
of
userboxen.
On 11/30/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And what better tie-in than Naziism. Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh...
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I think I'll be deleting my political-geared userboxes, just to be
safe.
I'm up for deleting all userboxes, but that's neither here nor there.
-humblefool
The Cunctator wrote:
...imagine at the bottom of an article instead of just listing the categories it belonged to in "boring" text each category had its own pretty colored box with some goofy icon. That would be AWESOME.
WP:BEANS! WP:BEANS! WP:BEANS! WP:BEANS! WP:BEANS!
Steve Summit wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
...imagine at the bottom of an article instead of just listing the categories it belonged to in "boring" text each category had its own pretty colored box with some goofy icon. That would be AWESOME.
WP:BEANS! WP:BEANS! WP:BEANS! WP:BEANS! WP:BEANS!
Been there, done that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pastelbox.gif
Nonsense, that wasn't even a userbox.
On 11/30/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
And what better tie-in than Naziism. Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thursday 30 November 2006 16:07, Rob wrote:
I believe (or hope, perhaps) that Wikipedia administrators are rational adults and capable of discerning the difference between an acceptable use of a Wikipedia userpage and the unacceptable use of it as a soapbox for views "beyond the pale", and as such can discern the difference between a normal, sane political party and one that advocates the extermination of whole categories of other human beings.
You mean like the various leftist parties, including the Canadian Social Democrats, the US Democrat and Communist parties, etc.?
Do you believe that the Nazi party is no different from any of those other parties, or is this just a cheap rhetorical device? Be honest.
The difference between the Nazis and many other regimes is in degree, not type. Where is the line drawn?
Exactly.
I would suggest simply forbidding political userboxes, removing them from any userpage on which they appear and unbanning this user.
Remember, there is a difference between modern neo-nazi parties and the German Nazi party of the 1930s and 40s. They may have the same political beliefs, but they are different parties. This user is not a mass murderer, he just happens to agree with one on political issues.
And I don't think Godwin's law applies to a discussion about Nazis. We aren't comparing anything to Nazis, in fact, we're comparing Nazis to other things - perhaps a converse to Godwin's law? ;)
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, there is a difference between modern neo-nazi parties and the German Nazi party of the 1930s and 40s. They may have the same political beliefs, but they are different parties. This user is not a mass murderer, he just happens to agree with one on political issues.
If anything, the modern Nazi advocate is worse, because he or she has no excuse for not knowing what the Nazi agenda is really about. A modern Nazi is of course not a mass murderer, merely a wannabe mass murderer, but the only difference between the two is skill and opportunity.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, there is a difference between modern neo-nazi parties and the German Nazi party of the 1930s and 40s. They may have the same political beliefs, but they are different parties. This user is not a mass murderer, he just happens to agree with one on political issues.
If anything, the modern Nazi advocate is worse, because he or she has no excuse for not knowing what the Nazi agenda is really about. A modern Nazi is of course not a mass murderer, merely a wannabe mass murderer, but the only difference between the two is skill and opportunity.
Debates about Naziism aside, either all political userboxes are allowed or none are, as every political party is considered to be offensive by someone. One point: we need to watch for mission (anti-user box) creep.
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Debates about Naziism aside, either all political userboxes are allowed or none are, as every political party is considered to be offensive by someone. One point: we need to watch for mission (anti-user box) creep.
Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that they are offensive. There is no need for an all or nothing requirement here.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that they are offensive.
Evidence?
There is no need for an all or nothing requirement here.
So you would be ok with a "this user is a supporter of the GIA" userbox?
On 11/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that they are offensive.
Evidence?
Oh, please.
There is no need for an all or nothing requirement here.
So you would be ok with a "this user is a supporter of the GIA" userbox?
Case by case basis decided by rational adults, not all or nothing or everything but Nazi.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that they are offensive.
Evidence?
Oh, please.
So you can't back it up. Remeber there are parts of the world outside europe and the US.
Case by case basis decided by rational adults, not all or nothing or everything but Nazi.
Well ok lets go for an example directly involveing genocide:
This user supports the Scythians.
On 11/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
So you can't back it up. Remeber there are parts of the world outside europe and the US.
Oh, I was wondering what was on the other side of that big blue space on the map.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I was wondering what was on the other side of that big blue space on the map.
If you recall china's recent history it is likely that there is a greater cultral bias against imperal japanese than agaist the distant nazis. China makes up a significant part of the worlds population so for you claim to hold you would need to show (amoung other things) that a significant percentage of chinese found certian references to the nazis offensive.
On 11/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I was wondering what was on the other side of that big blue space on the map.
If you recall china's recent history it is likely that there is a greater cultral bias against imperal japanese than agaist the distant nazis. China makes up a significant part of the worlds population so for you claim to hold you would need to show (amoung other things) that a significant percentage of chinese found certian references to the nazis offensive.
If there was a hypothetical Asian Nazi-like group that advocated the extermination of all Chinese, I wouldn't have to show that people in France or Canada or Estonia also found them offensive to support the prohbition against allowing that group to use Wikipedia userspace as a soapbox.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
If there was a hypothetical Asian Nazi-like group that advocated the extermination of all Chinese, I wouldn't have to show that people in France or Canada or Estonia also found them offensive to support the prohbition against allowing that group to use Wikipedia userspace as a soapbox.
Again that phrase "use Wikipedia userspace as asoapbox". I've seen the userspace used as a soapbox for real. This wasn't it.
On 11/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
If there was a hypothetical Asian Nazi-like group that advocated the extermination of all Chinese, I wouldn't have to show that people in France or Canada or Estonia also found them offensive to support the prohbition against allowing that group to use Wikipedia userspace as a soapbox.
Again that phrase "use Wikipedia userspace as asoapbox". I've seen the userspace used as a soapbox for real. This wasn't it.
Guess we'll just have to disagree on that point. It seemed to be a pretty clear (though almost certainly insincere) advocacy of Nazism.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Rob wrote:
If there was a hypothetical Asian Nazi-like group that advocated the extermination of all Chinese, I wouldn't have to show that people in France or Canada or Estonia also found them offensive to support the prohbition against allowing that group to use Wikipedia userspace as a soapbox.
It's my impression that current Nazis don't publically advocate the extermination of anyone. Of course, they may just be lying, and they're certainly connected to historical Nazis who did kill, but I could say the same thing about Communists or certain other groups.
On Thursday 30 November 2006 16:56, geni wrote:
Well ok lets go for an example directly involveing genocide:
This user supports the Scythians.
This user is a Turk.
This user is a Communist.
etc., etc., etc.
On 11/30/06, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Thursday 30 November 2006 16:56, geni wrote:
Well ok lets go for an example directly involveing genocide:
This user supports the Scythians.
This user is a Turk.
This user is a Communist.
etc., etc., etc.
There's a difference between "groups which have commited genocide" (who hasn't?) and espousing ideologies which endorse genocide.
On 30/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that they are offensive. There is no need for an all or nothing requirement here.
The concensus among most non-Republicans is that they are morally offensive. The same goes for the Democrats. So what?
On 11/30/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that they are offensive. There is no need for an all or nothing requirement here.
The concensus among most non-Republicans is that they are morally offensive. The same goes for the Democrats. So what?
This is an absurd comparison. Rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between normal partisan politics and a group which advocates mass extermination.
Rob wrote:
On 11/30/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that they are offensive. There is no need for an all or nothing requirement here.
The concensus among most non-Republicans is that they are morally offensive. The same goes for the Democrats. So what?
This is an absurd comparison. Rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between normal partisan politics and a group which advocates mass extermination.
Historically, the USA supported facism.
Rob wrote:
This is an absurd comparison. Rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between normal partisan politics and a group which advocates mass extermination.
And furthermore, and this is important in this particular example, rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between someone with sincerely held but deeply misguided beliefs or attitudes who is sincerely trying to nevertheless work well with others to create a fair encyclopedic set of articles on difficult topics, and someone who is just slapping stuff on a userpage to try to yank people's chains.
This is not a case of censorship of the poor repressed Nazis. This is a simple simple simple case of blocking a troll and moving on with life without worrying about it.
--Jimbo
On 12/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Rob wrote:
This is an absurd comparison. Rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between normal partisan politics and a group which advocates mass extermination.
And furthermore, and this is important in this particular example, rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between someone with sincerely held but deeply misguided beliefs or attitudes who is sincerely trying to nevertheless work well with others to create a fair encyclopedic set of articles on difficult topics, and someone who is just slapping stuff on a userpage to try to yank people's chains.
This is not a case of censorship of the poor repressed Nazis. This is a simple simple simple case of blocking a troll and moving on with life without worrying about it.
--Jimbo
No disrespect, Jimmy, but I don't think anyone was defending Nazis. It seems to me that some of us were attempting to hold a philosophical discussion on a broader topic, not a topical conversation on the banning of one person.
On 12/1/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Rob wrote:
This is an absurd comparison. Rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between normal partisan politics and a group which advocates mass extermination.
And furthermore, and this is important in this particular example, rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between someone with sincerely held but deeply misguided beliefs or attitudes who is sincerely trying to nevertheless work well with others to create a fair encyclopedic set of articles on difficult topics, and someone who is just slapping stuff on a userpage to try to yank people's chains.
This is not a case of censorship of the poor repressed Nazis. This is a simple simple simple case of blocking a troll and moving on with life without worrying about it.
--Jimbo
No disrespect, Jimmy, but I don't think anyone was defending Nazis. It seems to me that some of us were attempting to hold a philosophical discussion on a broader topic, not a topical conversation on the banning of one person.
Funny, because it seemed like people setting up absurd strawmen and burning them and talking about how evil and genocidal governments and organized religions are, which seems astoundingly off topic for the Wikipedia mailing list.
But I could be wrong.
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Rob wrote:
This is an absurd comparison. Rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between normal partisan politics and a group which advocates mass extermination.
And furthermore, and this is important in this particular example, rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between someone with sincerely held but deeply misguided beliefs or attitudes who is sincerely trying to nevertheless work well with others to create a fair encyclopedic set of articles on difficult topics, and someone who is just slapping stuff on a userpage to try to yank people's chains.
This is not a case of censorship of the poor repressed Nazis. This is a simple simple simple case of blocking a troll and moving on with life without worrying about it.
--Jimbo
No disrespect, Jimmy, but I don't think anyone was defending Nazis. It seems to me that some of us were attempting to hold a philosophical discussion on a broader topic, not a topical conversation on the banning of one person.
Right, me too. :) The point is, if the broad philosophical question is "Do we ban people for merely holding unpleasant or unpopular beliefs?" then the answer is "no, we never have, and there seems to be very little support for doing so". If the point is "Does asserting unpleasant or unpopular beliefs automatically get you a free pass to be any sort of jerk you like, because we are planning to bend over backwards to make sure we don't ever ever ever discriminate against Nazis?" then the answer is, "no, being a disruptive troll is still being a disruptive troll."
The day a kind, thoughtful, productive and intellectual person shows up to help us with the encyclopedia project while simultaneously asserting with all seriousness that the Nazi party of Germany was or is worthy of support, we'll have a hell of an interesting case on our hands. But the reality is, that hasn't happened and seems very unlikely to ever happen.
--Jimbo
On 12/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/1/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Rob wrote:
This is an absurd comparison. Rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between normal partisan politics and a group which advocates mass extermination.
And furthermore, and this is important in this particular example, rational people are completely capable of distinguishing between
someone
with sincerely held but deeply misguided beliefs or attitudes who is sincerely trying to nevertheless work well with others to create a fair encyclopedic set of articles on difficult topics, and someone who is just slapping stuff on a userpage to try to yank people's chains.
This is not a case of censorship of the poor repressed Nazis. This is
a
simple simple simple case of blocking a troll and moving on with life without worrying about it.
--Jimbo
No disrespect, Jimmy, but I don't think anyone was defending Nazis. It seems to me that some of us were attempting to hold a philosophical discussion on a broader topic, not a topical conversation on the banning
of
one person.
Right, me too. :) The point is, if the broad philosophical question is "Do we ban people for merely holding unpleasant or unpopular beliefs?" then the answer is "no, we never have, and there seems to be very little support for doing so". If the point is "Does asserting unpleasant or unpopular beliefs automatically get you a free pass to be any sort of jerk you like, because we are planning to bend over backwards to make sure we don't ever ever ever discriminate against Nazis?" then the answer is, "no, being a disruptive troll is still being a disruptive troll."
The day a kind, thoughtful, productive and intellectual person shows up to help us with the encyclopedia project while simultaneously asserting with all seriousness that the Nazi party of Germany was or is worthy of support, we'll have a hell of an interesting case on our hands. But the reality is, that hasn't happened and seems very unlikely to ever happen.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________
Good points, and essentially what I was getting at. You're right about the hypothetical, that *would* be a very interesting case were it to happen. More interesting, I think, would be the reaction of Wikipedians to that person. Might make a good book. ;)
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Debates about Naziism aside, either all political userboxes are allowed or none are, as every political party is considered to be offensive by someone. One point: we need to watch for mission (anti-user box) creep.
Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that they are offensive. There is no need for an all or nothing requirement here.
Offensive? Yes. Worth blocking over? No.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Debates about Naziism aside, either all political userboxes are allowed
or
none are, as every political party is considered to be offensive by someone. One point: we need to watch for mission (anti-user box) creep.
Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that they are offensive. There is no need for an all or nothing requirement here.
That's utter nonsense. Would you delete a page and ban the user who has a Communist userbox? Yes or no? Communists were responsible for far more deaths than the Nazis (hell, Hitler was an amateur compared to Uncle Joe and the Beloved Chairman Mao), and we (the Western nations) were allied with a genocidal paranoid butcher during WWII in order to defeat another genocidal paranoid butcher.
Picking and choosing what is "acceptable" is, to me, often an example of fear and ignorance.
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
That's utter nonsense. Would you delete a page and ban the user who has a Communist userbox? Yes or no? Communists were responsible for far more deaths than the Nazis (hell, Hitler was an amateur compared to Uncle Joe and the Beloved Chairman Mao), and we (the Western nations) were allied with a genocidal paranoid butcher during WWII in order to defeat another genocidal paranoid butcher.
Picking and choosing what is "acceptable" is, to me, often an example of fear and ignorance.
"Fear and ignorance"? Seriously, let's tone down the rhetoric here, please. How is saying that Wikipedia has no obligation to be a Nazi soapbox motivated by "fear and ignorance"? How is saying that Wikipedia should have rules of conduct that dictate that certain behaviors are outrageous, rules of conduct which are entirely similar to rules used in many, many other private spheres, motivated by "fear and ignorance"?
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
"Fear and ignorance"? Seriously, let's tone down the rhetoric here, please. How is saying that Wikipedia has no obligation to be a Nazi soapbox motivated by "fear and ignorance"?
Please be showing where wikipedia has been acting as a nazi soapbox.
How is saying that Wikipedia should have rules of conduct that dictate that certain behaviors are outrageous, rules of conduct which are entirely similar to rules used in many, many other private spheres, motivated by "fear and ignorance"?
Because in this case they would appear to be backed by the appeal to popularity logical fallacy.
On 11/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
"Fear and ignorance"? Seriously, let's tone down the rhetoric here, please. How is saying that Wikipedia has no obligation to be a Nazi soapbox motivated by "fear and ignorance"?
Please be showing where wikipedia has been acting as a nazi soapbox.
No obligation to provide a soapbox to Nazis via a userpage. You know perfectly well what I'm saying.
How is saying that Wikipedia should have rules of conduct that dictate that certain behaviors are outrageous, rules of conduct which are entirely similar to rules used in many, many other private spheres, motivated by "fear and ignorance"?
Because in this case they would appear to be backed by the appeal to popularity logical fallacy.
Whatever. There's nothing fallacious about saying that these rules of conduct which work perfectly fine in most private and semi-public spheres will work perfectly fine here.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
No obligation to provide a soapbox to Nazis via a userpage. You know perfectly well what I'm saying.
Page was not being used as a soapbox. I suppose if it was ranting about "The Fourteen Words" (although that is more white nationalists that nazis) then yes it would be being used as a soapbox but that was not what was going on.
Whatever. There's nothing fallacious about saying that these rules of conduct which work perfectly fine in most private and semi-public spheres will work perfectly fine here.
That would be extraplateing while not keeping control of you constant. My old stats teachers would have had a fit.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
That's utter nonsense. Would you delete a page and ban the user who has
a
Communist userbox? Yes or no? Communists were responsible for far more deaths than the Nazis (hell, Hitler was an amateur compared to Uncle Joe
and
the Beloved Chairman Mao), and we (the Western nations) were allied with
a
genocidal paranoid butcher during WWII in order to defeat another
genocidal
paranoid butcher.
Picking and choosing what is "acceptable" is, to me, often an example of fear and ignorance.
"Fear and ignorance"? Seriously, let's tone down the rhetoric here, please. How is saying that Wikipedia has no obligation to be a Nazi soapbox motivated by "fear and ignorance"? How is saying that Wikipedia should have rules of conduct that dictate that certain behaviors are outrageous, rules of conduct which are entirely similar to rules used in many, many other private spheres, motivated by "fear and ignorance"?
Some day I'll remember not to post philosophical points here. I simply don't have the time to explain how fear and ignorance are the catalyst for censorship.
Also, the inferrences you draw are not supported by what I wrote.
Finally, Wiki has no obligation to be a soapbox for anything, not just those things people find offensive.
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Some day I'll remember not to post philosophical points here. I simply don't have the time to explain how fear and ignorance are the catalyst for censorship.
And when we remove personal attacks, vandalism, or libel, are we censoring as well?
On 30/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Some day I'll remember not to post philosophical points here. I simply don't have the time to explain how fear and ignorance are the catalyst for censorship.
And when we remove personal attacks, vandalism, or libel, are we censoring as well?
Of course. But, at least in the case of libel, it is necessary to our continuing function.
On 11/30/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Some day I'll remember not to post philosophical points here. I
simply
don't have the time to explain how fear and ignorance are the catalyst for censorship.
And when we remove personal attacks, vandalism, or libel, are we censoring as well?
Of course. But, at least in the case of libel, it is necessary to our continuing function.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
I don't see removing libel as censorship -- libel falls under the category of "crying fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire", thus it is not free speech as intended by any constitution that allows free speech.
On Friday 01 December 2006 03:23, Jim Schuler wrote:
I don't see removing libel as censorship -- libel falls under the category of "crying fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire", thus it is not free speech as intended by any constitution that allows free speech.
The US Constitution does not "allow" free speech.
I'd be mighty pissed off if any government got so uppity as to think it had the authority to "allow" free speech.
Free speech is my birthright as a human being--I do not need to be "allowed" to speak freely; I am entitled to do so by the mere fact of my existence!
On 12/1/06, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Free speech is my birthright as a human being--I do not need to be "allowed" to speak freely; I am entitled to do so by the mere fact of my existence!
-- Kurt Weber
The wording is, "All men are endowed by thier Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these....[enumerated]."
Question is, how can atheists who deny thier Creator gave them rights, claim to have free speech, etc.
Nobs01
On 12/1/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/06, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Free speech is my birthright as a human being--I do not need to be "allowed" to speak freely; I am entitled to do so by the mere fact of my existence!
The wording is, "All men are endowed by thier Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these....[enumerated]."
Question is, how can atheists who deny thier Creator gave them rights, claim to have free speech, etc.
By first banning trolls who ask such questions and then making such claims without fear of have the conversation disrupted by idiotic questions?
On 01/12/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
The wording is, "All men are endowed by thier Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these....[enumerated]." Question is, how can atheists who deny thier Creator gave them rights, claim to have free speech, etc.
Obviously, Thomas Jefferson foresaw the rise of Richard Dawkins.
- d.
Rob Smith wrote:
On 12/1/06, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Free speech is my birthright as a human being--I do not need to be "allowed" to speak freely; I am entitled to do so by the mere fact of my existence!
The wording is, "All men are endowed by thier Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these....[enumerated]."
Question is, how can atheists who deny thier Creator gave them rights, claim to have free speech, etc.
It's easy if one substitutes an atheist definition of creator. :-)
Ec
On 12/1/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Rob Smith wrote:
On 12/1/06, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Free speech is my birthright as a human being--I do not need to be
"allowed"
to speak freely; I am entitled to do so by the mere fact of my
existence!
The wording is, "All men are endowed by thier Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these....[enumerated]."
Question is, how can atheists who deny thier Creator gave them rights, claim to have free speech, etc.
It's easy if one substitutes an atheist definition of creator. :-)
Ec
By the way: the wording is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution, so it really isn't relevant to the discussion. Additionally, that specific wording was chosen for its "propaganda" value -- it added an authoritative air to a document that would otherwise have been seen by the British as a list of whiney complaints, and that would not have received the support of much of the general populace.
On 12/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
The day a kind, thoughtful, productive and intellectual person shows up to help us with the encyclopedia project while simultaneously asserting with all seriousness that the Nazi party of Germany was or is worthy of support, we'll have a hell of an interesting case on our hands. But the reality is, that hasn't happened and seems very unlikely to ever happen.
--Jimbo
Yes we have the example of Dr. Christina Jeffrey whom the ADL vindicated with the words, "any characterization of you as anti-Semitic or sympathetic to Nazism is unfair and unfounded".
http://www.ngcsu.edu/bdf/bfried/cjeff.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v47/ai_16920435
yet it makes up almost entirely the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian_of_the_United_States_House_of_Represe...
and is probably not adaquately covered there; pity the poor editor who dares to undertake such a task.
Nobs01
On 12/2/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
The day a kind, thoughtful, productive and intellectual person shows up to help us with the encyclopedia project while simultaneously asserting with all seriousness that the Nazi party of Germany was or is worthy of support, we'll have a hell of an interesting case on our hands. But the reality is, that hasn't happened and seems very unlikely to ever happen.
--Jimbo
Yes we have the example of Dr. Christina Jeffrey whom the ADL vindicated with the words, "any characterization of you as anti-Semitic or sympathetic to Nazism is unfair and unfounded".
http://www.ngcsu.edu/bdf/bfried/cjeff.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v47/ai_16920435
yet it makes up almost entirely the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian_of_the_United_States_House_of_Represe...
and is probably not adaquately covered there; pity the poor editor who dares to undertake such a task.
I doubt Dr. Jeffries is an example of someone who thinks Nazi Germany "was or is worthy of support", probably just someone who advocated examining history from different perspectives but who chose her words very poorly.
Why not simply add the ADL information to the article instead of complaining about it here? I know that had I been aware of that information I certainly would have added it to the article when I wrote it, so you can't claim you would have faced resistance inserting this.
On 12/3/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
The day a kind, thoughtful, productive and intellectual person shows up to help us with the encyclopedia project while simultaneously asserting with all seriousness that the Nazi party of Germany was or is worthy of support, we'll have a hell of an interesting case on our hands. But
the
reality is, that hasn't happened and seems very unlikely to ever
happen.
--Jimbo
Yes we have the example of Dr. Christina Jeffrey whom the ADL vindicated with the words, "any characterization of you as anti-Semitic or sympathetic to Nazism is unfair and unfounded".
http://www.ngcsu.edu/bdf/bfried/cjeff.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v47/ai_16920435
yet it makes up almost entirely the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian_of_the_United_States_House_of_Represe...
and is probably not adaquately covered there; pity the poor editor who dares to undertake such a task.
I doubt Dr. Jeffries is an example of someone who thinks Nazi Germany "was or is worthy of support", probably just someone who advocated examining history from different perspectives but who chose her words very poorly.
Why not simply add the ADL information to the article instead of complaining about it here? I know that had I been aware of that information I certainly would have added it to the article when I wrote it, so you can't claim you would have faced resistance inserting this.
The Epopt did that already. The point being, even when a non-Nazi, non Anti-Semitic scholar of good will states, ""The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view" they are permantly defamed by such authoritive sources as sitting members of Congress.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16920435.html
Nobs01
On 12/3/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Why not simply add the ADL information to the article instead of complaining about it here?
Sorry, I'm used to the people on the list being Wikipedia participants and I forgot that you have some sort of Arbcom prohibition on you so you can't actually edit. My apologies.
On 12/3/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.comhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l> wrote:
I know that had I been aware of that information I certainly would have added it to the article when I wrote it, so you can't claim you would have faced resistance inserting this.
And the fact that the Office of Historian of the House of Representatives sat vacant for 10 years speaks volumes about the status of this debate. I would hope that Wikipedia is designed to work past this impasse. Thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian_of_the_United_States_House_of_Represe...
Nobs01
On 12/3/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.comhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l> wrote:
I know that had I been aware of that information I certainly would have added it to the article when I wrote it, so you can't claim you would have faced resistance inserting this.
And the fact that the Office of Historian of the House of Representatives sat vacant for 10 years speaks volumes about the status of this debate. I would hope that Wikipedia is designed to work past this impasse. Thank you.
You mentioned missing information, the information was added immediately. What's the impasse?
On 12/3/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
What's the impasse?
The partisan impasse represented in the highest levels of an elected democracy, i.e. that through baseless defamatory smears and wreckless journalism one side can achieve a result.
Christina Jeffrey was "the best man for the job", so to speak; the 10 vacancy only supports this conclusion.
nobs
On 12/3/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
What's the impasse?
The partisan impasse represented in the highest levels of an elected democracy, i.e. that through baseless defamatory smears and wreckless journalism one side can achieve a result.
As wicked cool as Wikipedia is, I don't think we can solve that problem. We should probably be using this list to work on problems we can solve, or failing that, argue about AfD and userboxes.
On 12/3/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
What's the impasse?
The partisan impasse represented in the highest levels of an elected democracy, i.e. that through baseless defamatory smears and wreckless journalism one side can achieve a result.
As wicked cool as Wikipedia is, I don't think we can solve that problem. We should probably be using this list to work on problems we can solve, or failing that, argue about AfD and userboxes.
Agreed; let's hope Wikipedia is a little more tolerant of scholars of good will than some members of Congress and partisan journalists are.
nobs
On 12/1/06, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
The US Constitution does not "allow" free speech. I'd be mighty pissed off if any government got so uppity as to think it had the authority to "allow" free speech. Free speech is my birthright as a human being--I do not need to be "allowed" to speak freely; I am entitled to do so by the mere fact of my existence!
Your right to free speech to not extend far enough to make private orginizations expend resources to distribute your speech. As such matters of free speech are entirely off topic for this thread and generally offtopic for the list.
In any case, you can write whatever you want on your own wiki.. We'll even give you the software. :)
On 01/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, you can write whatever you want on your own wiki.. We'll even give you the software. :)
One of the standard emails I get is people asking if such-and-such a site is run by us, because it looks JUST LIKE WIKIPEDIA!
And by the way, even the Neo-Nazis have a wiki, WN Wiki, but it seems to have floundered - see http://www.vnnforum.com/printthread.php?t=27152 (warning: Neo-Nazi forum) .
- d.
Wow... just wow.
--Ryan
On 12/1/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, you can write whatever you want on your own wiki.. We'll even give you the software. :)
One of the standard emails I get is people asking if such-and-such a site is run by us, because it looks JUST LIKE WIKIPEDIA!
And by the way, even the Neo-Nazis have a wiki, WN Wiki, but it seems to have floundered - see http://www.vnnforum.com/printthread.php?t=27152 (warning: Neo-Nazi forum) .
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, you can write whatever you want on your own wiki.. We'll even give you the software. :)
One of the standard emails I get is people asking if such-and-such a site is run by us, because it looks JUST LIKE WIKIPEDIA!
And by the way, even the Neo-Nazis have a wiki, WN Wiki, but it seems to have floundered - see http://www.vnnforum.com/printthread.php?t=27152 (warning: Neo-Nazi forum) .
I thought the cab^W^W Willy on Wheels got the better of it...
On 12/1/06, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Friday 01 December 2006 03:23, Jim Schuler wrote:
I don't see removing libel as censorship -- libel falls under the
category
of "crying fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire", thus it is
not
free speech as intended by any constitution that allows free speech.
The US Constitution does not "allow" free speech.
I'd be mighty pissed off if any government got so uppity as to think it had the authority to "allow" free speech.
Free speech is my birthright as a human being--I do not need to be "allowed" to speak freely; I am entitled to do so by the mere fact of my existence!
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
In an abstract sense you are absolutely correct. In a Realpolitik sense, no.
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Some day I'll remember not to post philosophical points here. I simply don't have the time to explain how fear and ignorance are the catalyst for censorship.
And when we remove personal attacks, vandalism, or libel, are we censoring as well?
In answer to this strawman: libel is is illegal, personal attacks are covered under the TOS, and vandalism speaks for itself.
On 12/1/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Some day I'll remember not to post philosophical points here. I simply don't have the time to explain how fear and ignorance are the catalyst for censorship.
And when we remove personal attacks, vandalism, or libel, are we censoring as well?
In answer to this strawman: libel is is illegal, personal attacks are covered under the TOS, and vandalism speaks for itself.
Hardly a strawman. Removing vandalism, libel, and personal attacks are normal, widely accepted rules in a semi-public or private sphere such as Wikipedia and necessary for WP to function as a usable and relatively non-offensive workspace for rational adults to contribute to the project. I would argue that removing pro-Nazi propaganda or statements advocating Nazisim falls into the same category as the other rules.
On 12/1/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Some day I'll remember not to post philosophical points here. I
simply
don't have the time to explain how fear and ignorance are the
catalyst
for censorship.
And when we remove personal attacks, vandalism, or libel, are we censoring as well?
In answer to this strawman: libel is is illegal, personal attacks are covered under the TOS, and vandalism speaks for itself.
Hardly a strawman. Removing vandalism, libel, and personal attacks are normal, widely accepted rules in a semi-public or private sphere such as Wikipedia and necessary for WP to function as a usable and relatively non-offensive workspace for rational adults to contribute to the project. I would argue that removing pro-Nazi propaganda or statements advocating Nazisim falls into the same category as the other rules.
And none of that had anything to do with what I said, nor was it anything I argued against. As I noted, I will remember (memo to self) not to try to engage in philosophical discussions here -- they are clearly not welcome. A shame really, as we are engaged in the writing of an encyclopedia here, an avocation I had assumed to be academic in nature.
Rob wrote:
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, there is a difference between modern neo-nazi parties and the German Nazi party of the 1930s and 40s. They may have the same political beliefs, but they are different parties. This user is not a mass murderer, he just happens to agree with one on political issues.
If anything, the modern Nazi advocate is worse, because he or she has no excuse for not knowing what the Nazi agenda is really about. A modern Nazi is of course not a mass murderer, merely a wannabe mass murderer, but the only difference between the two is skill and opportunity.
In this case, it is not so much about Nazi or non-Nazi. It's about trolling. Don't feed the trolls.
Do you know what trolls like to eat? They thrive on getting good people to fight with each other. Yum Yum. It's boring. Best to treat it as boring and move on.
--Jimbo
On 11/30/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Rob wrote:
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, there is a difference between modern neo-nazi parties and the German Nazi party of the 1930s and 40s. They may have the same political beliefs, but they are different parties. This user is not a mass murderer, he just happens to agree with one on political issues.
If anything, the modern Nazi advocate is worse, because he or she has no excuse for not knowing what the Nazi agenda is really about. A modern Nazi is of course not a mass murderer, merely a wannabe mass murderer, but the only difference between the two is skill and opportunity.
In this case, it is not so much about Nazi or non-Nazi. It's about trolling. Don't feed the trolls.
Do you know what trolls like to eat? They thrive on getting good people to fight with each other. Yum Yum. It's boring. Best to treat it as boring and move on.
--Jimbo
Nuking this guy didn't harm having accurate or balanced coverage of Nazi-ism.
The "rest of us" tend to be in situations where kicking people off the project without due process is a pretty bad thing to have happen, but I can't disagree that simply being done with him was probably best for us all. Good call.
On 11/30/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Rob wrote:
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, there is a difference between modern neo-nazi parties and the German Nazi party of the 1930s and 40s. They may have the same political beliefs, but they are different parties. This user is not a mass murderer, he just happens to agree with one on political issues.
If anything, the modern Nazi advocate is worse, because he or she has no excuse for not knowing what the Nazi agenda is really about. A modern Nazi is of course not a mass murderer, merely a wannabe mass murderer, but the only difference between the two is skill and opportunity.
In this case, it is not so much about Nazi or non-Nazi. It's about trolling. Don't feed the trolls.
Do you know what trolls like to eat? They thrive on getting good people to fight with each other. Yum Yum. It's boring. Best to treat it as boring and move on.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In this case, I agree with the block under WP:COMMONSENSE (the guy was certainly a troll, look at the other things on his userpage), but there seem to be people here who think it would be OK to block all Nazis/people with offensive ideologies even if they're not trolling, which doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
On 11/30/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Rob wrote:
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, there is a difference between modern neo-nazi parties and the German Nazi party of the 1930s and 40s. They may have the same political beliefs, but they are different parties. This user is not a mass murderer, he just happens to agree with one on political issues.
If anything, the modern Nazi advocate is worse, because he or she has no excuse for not knowing what the Nazi agenda is really about. A modern Nazi is of course not a mass murderer, merely a wannabe mass murderer, but the only difference between the two is skill and opportunity.
In this case, it is not so much about Nazi or non-Nazi. It's about trolling. Don't feed the trolls.
Do you know what trolls like to eat? They thrive on getting good people to fight with each other. Yum Yum. It's boring. Best to treat it as boring and move on.
--Jimbo
In this case, I don't see us as fighting but as discussing. Yes, the discussion may get heated at times, but that's OK, as discussions, heated or calm, are how we build consensus. In other words, there's a value to this exercise, so long as it doesn't degenerate into pettiness.
From: Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:47:16 -0500
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Is everyone displaying any of the userboxes on these pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRBerry/German_userbox_solution#Political_...
going to banned?
The only reason I can see for treating Nazis differently from anyone else is because people don't like Nazis. It boils down to banning someone for being unpopular.
If Wikipedia were based in Germany, it would be an obvious ban for breaking the law, but Wikipedia is under US jurisdiction, and the US doesn't have any such law.
Do you believe that the Nazi party is no different from any of those other parties, or is this just a cheap rhetorical device? Be honest.
Do you also not see the difference between free speech in the public sphere and in the private sphere? While the principles of and laws regarding free speech should of course apply to Nazis like they do to everyone else, Wikipedia is not obligated by those principles and laws to provide a soapbox for Nazis.
Isn't it pretty far outside of our purview to be providing a soapbox for some controversial political parties and not others? Why do we allow any of this crap? What justifies allowing people to proclaim their affiliation with one party and not another? I'll agree that Nazi is beyond the pale, but where, precisely, is "the pale"?
GTB
_________________________________________________________________ Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now. http://ideas.live.com
On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Tony Jacobs wrote:
I'll agree that Nazi is beyond the pale, but where, precisely, is "the pale"?
There is no definition of "the pale." This is Calvinball. When things are stupid, we kill them. The end. No details, no "process," just "That is stupid," followed by "bang."
-Phil
On 11/30/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Tony Jacobs wrote:
I'll agree that Nazi is beyond the pale, but where, precisely, is "the pale"?
There is no definition of "the pale." This is Calvinball. When things are stupid, we kill them. The end. No details, no "process," just "That is stupid," followed by "bang."
Most of us don't really get to play Calvinball with trolls. That's probably a good thing.
Jimbo does. That's probably also a good thing.
George Herbert wrote:
On 11/30/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Tony Jacobs wrote:
I'll agree that Nazi is beyond the pale, but where, precisely, is "the pale"?
There is no definition of "the pale." This is Calvinball. When things are stupid, we kill them. The end. No details, no "process," just "That is stupid," followed by "bang."
Most of us don't really get to play Calvinball with trolls. That's probably a good thing.
Jimbo does. That's probably also a good thing.
It will be interesting if the one thing to last out of Watterson's comic is the word "Calvinball".
I loved that comic. Too bad he retired.
-Rich Holton
Please consider this an end to this thread.
Too many bit spilt alraedy on what seems to be, in this particular case, a completely obvious action. Thanks.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado) A WikiEN-L moderator, when he needs to be
On 12/1/06, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 11/30/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Tony Jacobs wrote:
I'll agree that Nazi is beyond the pale, but where, precisely, is "the pale"?
There is no definition of "the pale." This is Calvinball. When things are stupid, we kill them. The end. No details, no "process," just "That is stupid," followed by "bang."
Most of us don't really get to play Calvinball with trolls. That's probably a good thing.
Jimbo does. That's probably also a good thing.
It will be interesting if the one thing to last out of Watterson's comic is the word "Calvinball".
I loved that comic. Too bad he retired.
-Rich Holton _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/30/06, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
It will be interesting if the one thing to last out of Watterson's comic is the word "Calvinball".
I loved that comic. Too bad he retired.
A good cartoonist knows when to retire. A bad cartoonist keeps turning out the same old thing, year after year.
Same with Wikipedia contributors. Take a break, people!
On 12/1/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
It will be interesting if the one thing to last out of Watterson's comic is the word "Calvinball".
I loved that comic. Too bad he retired.
A good cartoonist knows when to retire. A bad cartoonist keeps turning out the same old thing, year after year.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/12/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Same with Wikipedia contributors. Take a break, people!
Oh, that one takes care of itself - they get eaten by admin or foundation work.
- d.
On 11/30/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Tony Jacobs wrote:
I'll agree that Nazi is beyond the pale, but where, precisely, is "the pale"?
There is no definition of "the pale." This is Calvinball. When things are stupid, we kill them. The end. No details, no "process," just "That is stupid," followed by "bang."
-Phil
Of course, we then need to define "stupid". What is stupid to one is not necessarily stupid to another. Objectivity is a good thing, subjectivity is not, hence Wiki's cornerstone NPOV policy.
GODWIN GODWIN GODWIN
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody was banned for being a Nazi. They were banned for proclaiming it on their userpage. Which is disruptive. You are welcome to edit Wikipedia as a Nazi, or as a pedophile, or as anyone else. You are, however, expected not to use Wikipedia as a platform for proclaiming controversial views.
What's hard here?
Is everyone displaying any of the userboxes on these pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRBerry/German_userbox_solution#Political_... going to banned?
The only reason I can see for treating Nazis differently from anyone else is because people don't like Nazis. It boils down to banning someone for being unpopular.
If Wikipedia were based in Germany, it would be an obvious ban for breaking the law, but Wikipedia is under US jurisdiction, and the US doesn't have any such law. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I indef blocked and deleted the page. Why are we even talking about
this?
Because Wikipedia doesn't generally ban users based on political affiliation? Banning someone for being a Nazi when it isn't illegal and they aren't causing any disruption is discrimination, pure and simple. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Couldn't we just ban the user for trolling and defer debate until such time as there is an actual good-faith Nazi userbox? The chances of this happening are (at present) fairly low and it'd be prudent not to debate for debate's sake... :-)
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:11:23 -0500, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I indef blocked and deleted the page. Why are we even talking about this?
My instinct was right then - you beat me to the punch, though :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 30/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I indef blocked and deleted the page. Why are we even talking about this?
Discussing everything and achieving community concensus, rather than acting on the instinct of one particular user, is a tenant of Wikipedia.
Obviously there are exceptions when it comes to biographies about living people, but this isn't one.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:29:11 +0000, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Discussing everything and achieving community concensus, rather than acting on the instinct of one particular user, is a tenant of Wikipedia.
Banning egregious trolls and trusting the judgment of Jimbo is another tenet of Wikipedia :-)
Guy (JzG)
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 30/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I indef blocked and deleted the page. Why are we even talking about this?
Discussing everything and achieving community concensus, rather than acting on the instinct of one particular user, is a tenant of Wikipedia.
This has been discussed dozens of times before, we don't need to rehash it yet again. "Wikipedia home to Nazis" is a juicy news headline we don't need, "Wikipedia home to PDG-RDA supporters" is never going to happen. Not purely logical perhaps, but sometimes real life is that way.
Stan
If the IP address is german or austria then wiki can remove the swastika image and any reference to holocaust denial since they violate local laws, otherwise it's a personal page; ignore it.
On 11/30/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I just came across the following userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14 which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently, depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the Great Userboxes War. Michael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l