On 2/7/06 5:54 PM, "wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org" wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:58:03 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?
W. Guy Finley wrote:
What is staring to kill me is that people feel hey have a RIGHT to edit Wikipedia. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege and if you demonstrate you're a dolt and can't handle that then there should be no question your ability to edit should be revoked for a set period of time or indefinitely. We're talking about a user here who's vast majority of time has been spent putting all the "funny" boxes on his user page and embarrassing the good name of a rock and roll legend.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a fundamental right to edit Wikipedia. Rather, the claim is that Wikipedia's mission of writing a neutral, high-quality encyclopedia is not well served by excessive policing of users to cull the ones who express opinions deemed "embarrassing". It seems more useful to limit banning to the cases where a user is actually disrupting the process of writing an encyclopedia, e.g. by edit-warring or spamming.
-Mark
Stupendous, molesting children is "embarrassing". Don't think I could have seen a bigger understatement or marginalization of the issue all day. This just in "American Bishops Find Pedophiliac Priests to be 'embarrassing'" Yeah, that would go over well.
Oh, and how is a wheel war amongst several admins, intervention by Jimbo and a speedy arb case NOT considered a disruption? All of this because a few people thought something as sick as this was funny.
--Guy (User:Wgfinley)
W. Guy Finley wrote:
Stupendous, molesting children is "embarrassing". Don't think I could have seen a bigger understatement or marginalization of the issue all day. This just in "American Bishops Find Pedophiliac Priests to be 'embarrassing'" Yeah, that would go over well.
No; someone *claiming* to be a pedophile, almost certianly falsely, is "embarrassing".
In any case, there are plenty of things people find really offensive. Try telling someone in Saudi Arabia that we allow unrepentant homosexuals on the site (homosexuality has status in law actually more severe than pedophilia), and then see if they want their kids to read it. Or even in the enlightened west, you might find a lot of people shocked that we allow open Satanists!
-Mark
Stupendous, molesting children is "embarrassing". Don't think I could have seen a bigger understatement or marginalization of the issue all day. This just in "American Bishops Find Pedophiliac Priests to be 'embarrassing'" Yeah, that would go over well.
No; someone *claiming* to be a pedophile, almost certianly falsely, is "embarrassing".
In any case, there are plenty of things people find really offensive. Try telling someone in Saudi Arabia that we allow unrepentant homosexuals on the site (homosexuality has status in law actually more severe than pedophilia), and then see if they want their kids to read it.
Or insulting cartoon pictures of Muhammed.
Delirium wrote:
W. Guy Finley wrote:
Stupendous, molesting children is "embarrassing". Don't think I could have seen a bigger understatement or marginalization of the issue all day. This just in "American Bishops Find Pedophiliac Priests to be 'embarrassing'" Yeah, that would go over well.
No; someone *claiming* to be a pedophile, almost certianly falsely, is "embarrassing".
In any case, there are plenty of things people find really offensive. Try telling someone in Saudi Arabia that we allow unrepentant homosexuals on the site (homosexuality has status in law actually more severe than pedophilia), and then see if they want their kids to read it. Or even in the enlightened west, you might find a lot of people shocked that we allow open Satanists!
Or Stalinists?
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Delirium wrote:
W. Guy Finley wrote:
Stupendous, molesting children is "embarrassing". Don't think I could have seen a bigger understatement or marginalization of the issue all day. This just in "American Bishops Find Pedophiliac Priests to be 'embarrassing'" Yeah, that would go over well.
No; someone *claiming* to be a pedophile, almost certianly falsely, is "embarrassing".
In any case, there are plenty of things people find really offensive. Try telling someone in Saudi Arabia that we allow unrepentant homosexuals on the site (homosexuality has status in law actually more severe than pedophilia), and then see if they want their kids to read it. Or even in the enlightened west, you might find a lot of people shocked that we allow open Satanists!
Or Stalinists?
Wikipedia is Communism! We are the NEW BABYLON! We operate under a Totalitarian Unificationist Left-wing Objectivist Jewish Micronation Terrorist point of view! (Thanks to Michael Snow for the last one)