On 8 Feb 2006 at 22:49, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is American, yes. That is why I drew the line there. Yes, I know it isn't perfect. But it's better than anything else I've seen.
But it's not against U.S. law to discuss, or advocate, smoking weed. After all, "High Times" magazine is published in the United States. Some of the government's drug warriors have wished they could ban all advocacy of drug use as well as the drug use itself, but so far the First Amendment has stopped them.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 at 22:49, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is American, yes. That is why I drew the line there. Yes, I know it isn't perfect. But it's better than anything else I've seen.
But it's not against U.S. law to discuss, or advocate, smoking weed. After all, "High Times" magazine is published in the United States. Some of the government's drug warriors have wished they could ban all advocacy of drug use as well as the drug use itself, but so far the First Amendment has stopped them.
IIRC US courts have also ruled information about how to make bombs is also protected under the first amendment. You just can't advocate that people use those bombs for illegal ourposes. You could still use them to blow up stumps on your own back 40.
Ec
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
But it's not against U.S. law to discuss, or advocate, smoking weed. After all, "High Times" magazine is published in the United States. Some of the government's drug warriors have wished they could ban all advocacy of drug use as well as the drug use itself, but so far the First Amendment has stopped them.
Or even, for that matter, to discuss, or advocate, adults having sex with children who are below the age of consent. After all, NAMBLA is headquartered in the United States...
-Mark
On 2/10/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 at 22:49, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is American, yes. That is why I drew the line there. Yes, I know it isn't perfect. But it's better than anything else I've seen.
But it's not against U.S. law to discuss, or advocate, smoking weed. After all, "High Times" magazine is published in the United States. Some of the government's drug warriors have wished they could ban all advocacy of drug use as well as the drug use itself, but so far the First Amendment has stopped them.
No. But it's bad publicity to say that we accept people who break the law and proclaim it proudly. No, it's not a legal necessity. But it is a public relations matter, and I see no reason why it should not be applied.
Can anyone think of an alternative line to draw?
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/10/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 at 22:49, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is American, yes. That is why I drew the line there. Yes, I know it isn't perfect. But it's better than anything else I've seen.
But it's not against U.S. law to discuss, or advocate, smoking weed. After all, "High Times" magazine is published in the United States. Some of the government's drug warriors have wished they could ban all advocacy of drug use as well as the drug use itself, but so far the First Amendment has stopped them.
No. But it's bad publicity to say that we accept people who break the law and proclaim it proudly. No, it's not a legal necessity. But it is a public relations matter, and I see no reason why it should not be applied.
Can anyone think of an alternative line to draw?
Why should drawing a line be so important? Giving users the maximum flexibility to express who they are is good for everybody, because the whole world then has a transparent view of where that individual is coming from.
Nobody is even promoting that people should proclaim that they are breaking the law. It's a big leap from someone saying that he smokes weed to his proclaiing that he is breaking the law. If what people say is tantamount to admitting to breaking the law we can offer them no protection against self-incrimination.
There's something sad about a situation where PR becomes the driving force behind what we do. It's equally disturbing when a bunch of hypocrites loudly shout "IANAL", and then proceed in an attempt to enforce the law that they don't know anything about.
A better approach might be to put a disclaimer at the top of every user page saying that the page represents the views of the user alone, and that we collectively accept no responsibility for what this person says even though it may sometimes be outrageous.
Wikipedia got where it is by applying a vision boldly, not by engaging in a PR paranoia game. To be sure being bold puts the leaders on a media hotseat. The media thrive on confrontationist journalism, but respecting free speech is not a defect. They should be encouraging free speech, not manipulating interviewees into making distorted and compromising statements. Sometimes what is written or spokend does ignite the passions of the ignorant into stupid action, but if we allow that argument to hold sway we are dumbing down our efforts for the sake of pandering to our societies' lowest common denominators. We end up sacrificing NPOV because we are afraid that some of the constituents that must be balanced to achieve neutrality are too embarassing or too contentious.
Ec
On 2/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why should drawing a line be so important? Giving users the maximum flexibility to express who they are is good for everybody, because the whole world then has a transparent view of where that individual is coming from.
OK, with the premise that some line needs to be drawn to regulate the content of userpages, can anyone think of a better line to be drawn?
Nobody is even promoting that people should proclaim that they are breaking the law. It's a big leap from someone saying that he smokes weed to his proclaiing that he is breaking the law. If what people say is tantamount to admitting to breaking the law we can offer them no protection against self-incrimination.
I didn't use this example.
There's something sad about a situation where PR becomes the driving force behind what we do. It's equally disturbing when a bunch of hypocrites loudly shout "IANAL", and then proceed in an attempt to enforce the law that they don't know anything about.
The good of the project is the driving force. Of course PR has an effect.
A better approach might be to put a disclaimer at the top of every user page saying that the page represents the views of the user alone, and that we collectively accept no responsibility for what this person says even though it may sometimes be outrageous.
Where does that get the encyclopaedia?
Wikipedia got where it is by applying a vision boldly, not by engaging in a PR paranoia game. To be sure being bold puts the leaders on a media hotseat. The media thrive on confrontationist journalism, but respecting free speech is not a defect. They should be encouraging free speech, not manipulating interviewees into making distorted and compromising statements. Sometimes what is written or spokend does ignite the passions of the ignorant into stupid action, but if we allow that argument to hold sway we are dumbing down our efforts for the sake of pandering to our societies' lowest common denominators. We end up sacrificing NPOV because we are afraid that some of the constituents that must be balanced to achieve neutrality are too embarassing or too contentious.
Somehow we got onto talking about NPOV. As has been declared so loud, so often recently, NPOV need not apply to userpages. Thus we can censor however we like.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
There's something sad about a situation where PR becomes the driving force behind what we do. It's equally disturbing when a bunch of hypocrites loudly shout "IANAL", and then proceed in an attempt to enforce the law that they don't know anything about.
The good of the project is the driving force. Of course PR has an effect.
This depends on what you define as contributing to "the good of the project". I would define it as something like contributing to the ability to write a high-quality Free encyclopedia. In that case, it's unclear to what extent policing what sort of people contribute, and who they may say they are, is a positive. It's conceivable that we could lose some good contributors who refuse to contribute to a project that has neo-Nazi contributors (or Satanist contributors, or Stalinist contributors), but it's also conceivable that we could lose some good contributors who refuse to contribute to a project that has that sort of vetting (or even themselves run afoul of it).
My personal opinion, as is probably obvious, is that it does the project no good to wade into the morrass of trying to determine which opinions are "across the line" and which are "offensive to me personally but not bannable".
-Mark
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn
On 2/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why should drawing a line be so important? Giving users
the maximum
flexibility to express who they are is good for everybody,
because the
whole world then has a transparent view of where that individual is coming from.
OK, with the premise that some line needs to be drawn to regulate the content of userpages, can anyone think of a better line to be drawn?
What about common bloody sense?
I don't think we can draw a precise line, nor do I think that the two alternatives of "open slather" or "exclude all" are feasible.
If I may make a point, some userboxes are like sticking up those Danish cartoons. Is a line even possible?
Common sense tells me that if something causes significant disruption in a goal-oriented community, then that something should be removed. By asking politely at first and taking increasingly firmer action. But always remaining polite and fair and understanding.
Peter (Skyring)
On 2/10/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
What about common bloody sense?
As far as I can tell, many people have replaced IAR with ICS (Ignore Common Sense). Either that or they have real difficulties.
Yes, this is the policy I'd like, and that I use. But that doesn't mean I think it's realistic. After all, we do live in a real world.
Even with "edit this page".
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/10/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
What about common bloody sense?
As far as I can tell, many people have replaced IAR with ICS (Ignore Common Sense). Either that or they have real difficulties.
Yes, this is the policy I'd like, and that I use. But that doesn't mean I think it's realistic. After all, we do live in a real world.
When we start describing common sense as unrealistic we have a problem.
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/10/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
What about common bloody sense?
As far as I can tell, many people have replaced IAR with ICS (Ignore Common Sense). Either that or they have real difficulties.
Yes, this is the policy I'd like, and that I use. But that doesn't mean I think it's realistic. After all, we do live in a real world.
When we start describing common sense as unrealistic we have a problem.
Perhaps we should describe it as uncommon?
Pete, seeking the triumph of reason over logic
On 2/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/10/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
What about common bloody sense?
As far as I can tell, many people have replaced IAR with ICS (Ignore Common Sense). Either that or they have real difficulties.
Yes, this is the policy I'd like, and that I use. But that doesn't mean I think it's realistic. After all, we do live in a real world.
When we start describing common sense as unrealistic we have a problem.
Ec
The term "common sense" is meaningless so it doesn't really matter how you describe it.
-- geni
On 2/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/10/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
What about common bloody sense?
As far as I can tell, many people have replaced IAR with ICS (Ignore Common Sense). Either that or they have real difficulties.
Yes, this is the policy I'd like, and that I use. But that doesn't mean I think it's realistic. After all, we do live in a real world.
When we start describing common sense as unrealistic we have a problem.
Ec
Yep. I agree, we have a problem. The problem is that some users are beginning to refuse to use common sense.
-- Sam
On 2/10/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
OK, with the premise that some line needs to be drawn to regulate the content of userpages, can anyone think of a better line to be drawn?
I proposed disallowing potentially controversial opinions. Or some phrasing that discourages people from "hit and run" type statements that can't be debated by virtue of user pages being off limits.
Sorry to say I don't see what smoking marijuana has to do with anything, or why it would be a problem that someone proudly proclaims to be a marijuana smoker on their user page.
Steve