In the spirit of [[Aids Kills Fags Dead]] and in honor of Cungcator ("you and JD a consensus do not make") rather monolithic view of the article (considering Axel now endorsed its deletion... ) I have penned [[Death to Kikes]], an informative article about kikes... and soon to come:
[[Camel Niggers]], [[Cunt Conspiracy]]... you name it...
I realize after the fact, what a terrible choice [[Death to Kikes]] was for an article... I vote that we delete it along with [[Aids Kills Fags Dead]], and write up simple formal policy that limits the use of ethnic, racial, or hate slurs in article titles to general and topical ones. I apologise for this error, and trust that we can come closer to understanding what collegiality and cooperation mean, particularly in debates where issues of consistency and respect are involved. -Steven Vertigo
In the spirit of [[Aids Kills Fags Dead]] and in honor of Cungcator ("you and JD a consensus do not make") rather monolithic view of the article (considering Axel now endorsed its deletion... ) I have penned [[Death to Kikes]], an informative article about kikes... and soon to come:
[[Camel Niggers]], [[Cunt Conspiracy]]... you name it...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 08:26 PM 3/18/03 -0800, you wrote:
I realize after the fact, what a terrible choice [[Death to Kikes]] was for an article... I vote that we delete it along with [[Aids Kills Fags Dead]], and write up simple formal policy that limits the use of ethnic, racial, or hate slurs in article titles to general and topical ones. I apologise for this error, and trust that we can come closer to understanding what collegiality and cooperation mean, particularly in debates where issues of consistency and respect are involved. -Steven Vertigo
How about an apology for your anti-Semitism and blatant trolling, Steve?
I second Vicki's motion. Zoe Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:At 08:26 PM 3/18/03 -0800, you wrote:
I realize after the fact, what a terrible choice [[Death to Kikes]] was for an article... I vote that we delete it along with [[Aids Kills Fags Dead]], and write up simple formal policy that limits the use of ethnic, racial, or hate slurs in article titles to general and topical ones. I apologise for this error, and trust that we can come closer to understanding what collegiality and cooperation mean, particularly in debates where issues of consistency and respect are involved. -Steven Vertigo
How about an apology for your anti-Semitism and blatant trolling, Steve?
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 21:37, Stevertigo wrote:
In the spirit of [[Aids Kills Fags Dead]] and in honor of Cungcator ("you and JD a consensus do not make") rather monolithic view of the article (considering Axel now endorsed its deletion... ) I have penned [[Death to Kikes]], an informative article about kikes... and soon to come:
[[Camel Niggers]], [[Cunt Conspiracy]]... you name it...
Cungcator?
I was checking out [[Hepatitis_B]] and noted a prominent disclaimer in red text:
*DISCLAIMER*
Please remember that Wikipedia is offered for informational use only. The information is in most cases not reviewed by professionals. You are advised to contact your doctor for health-related decisions.
Should we be adding disclaimers like that to most of the articles? Do we even need a disclaimer? If so, I think it should be somewhere else, like on the front page, and not on each article we have. I can only imagine seeing the big red disclaimer on [[Food Poisoning]], [[Peyronie_disease]], [[Gingivitis]], [[Cancer]], and [[Chiropractic medicine]] :-P
I thought of removing the disclaimer from each of the Hepatitis articles but decided I should get a consensus here, first.
On 19-03-2003, Jesse Alter wrote thusly :
I was checking out [[Hepatitis_B]] and noted a prominent disclaimer in red text:
*DISCLAIMER*
Please remember that Wikipedia is offered for informational use only. The information is in most cases not reviewed by professionals. You are advised to contact your doctor for health-related decisions.
Should we be adding disclaimers like that to most of the articles? Do we even need a disclaimer? If so, I think it should be somewhere else, like on the front page, and not on each article we have. I can only imagine seeing the big red disclaimer on [[Food Poisoning]], [[Peyronie_disease]], [[Gingivitis]], [[Cancer]], and [[Chiropractic medicine]] :-P
I thought of removing the disclaimer from each of the Hepatitis articles but decided I should get a consensus here, first.
Jesse and all,
This is just the question whether Wikipedia is meant to be a reliable reference source.
If not, it should be clearly stated that _no_ information is meant to be taken seriously. If yes, we must be prepared to be responsible for what we write here. We cannot be sure that someone wouldn't take some misguided action reading some joke put in by a vandal (even accessible for a short time to readers). Wikipedia could be available in print and all reliable printed sources give such disclaimers. Not only to be on the safe side legally but to be responsible to their readers.
Let's see to it that Wikipedia is not a health hazard.
Regards, Kpjas.
Jesse Alter wrote:
*DISCLAIMER*
Please remember that Wikipedia is offered for informational use only. The information is in most cases not reviewed by professionals. You are advised to contact your doctor for health-related decisions.
Should we be adding disclaimers like that to most of the articles? Do we even need a disclaimer? If so, I think it should be somewhere else, like on the front page, and not on each article we have. I can only imagine seeing the big red disclaimer on [[Food Poisoning]], [[Peyronie_disease]], [[Gingivitis]], [[Cancer]], and [[Chiropractic medicine]] :-P
I thought of removing the disclaimer from each of the Hepatitis articles but decided I should get a consensus here, first.
The disclaimer is in the right place. It would be useless on the front page. A person who has reached the hepatitis article from a Google search, may not even know that the front page exists. There are always individuals in the general public whoce capacity for stupidity is absolutely brilliant. :-D
Eclecticology
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jesse Alter wrote:
*DISCLAIMER*
Please remember that Wikipedia is offered for informational use only. The information is in most cases not reviewed by professionals. You are advised to contact your doctor for health-related decisions.
Should we be adding disclaimers like that to most of the articles? Do we even need a disclaimer? If so, I think it should be somewhere else, like on the front page, and not on each article we have. I can only imagine seeing the big red disclaimer on [[Food Poisoning]], [[Peyronie_disease]], [[Gingivitis]], [[Cancer]], and [[Chiropractic medicine]] :-P
I thought of removing the disclaimer from each of the Hepatitis articles but decided I should get a consensus here, first.
The disclaimer is in the right place. It would be useless on the front page. A person who has reached the hepatitis article from a Google search, may not even know that the front page exists. There are always individuals in the general public whoce capacity for stupidity is absolutely brilliant. :-D
Eclecticology
Should I add the disclaimer to other articles related to medicine?
Sure, and we should make up a legal disclaimer too.
Fred
From: Jesse Alter jesse@snacksoft.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:35:38 -0500 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Medical Disclaimer
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jesse Alter wrote:
*DISCLAIMER*
Please remember that Wikipedia is offered for informational use only. The information is in most cases not reviewed by professionals. You are advised to contact your doctor for health-related decisions.
Should we be adding disclaimers like that to most of the articles? Do we even need a disclaimer? If so, I think it should be somewhere else, like on the front page, and not on each article we have. I can only imagine seeing the big red disclaimer on [[Food Poisoning]], [[Peyronie_disease]], [[Gingivitis]], [[Cancer]], and [[Chiropractic medicine]] :-P
I thought of removing the disclaimer from each of the Hepatitis articles but decided I should get a consensus here, first.
The disclaimer is in the right place. It would be useless on the front page. A person who has reached the hepatitis article from a Google search, may not even know that the front page exists. There are always individuals in the general public whoce capacity for stupidity is absolutely brilliant. :-D
Eclecticology
Should I add the disclaimer to other articles related to medicine?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In the spirit of [[Aids Kills Fags Dead]] and in honor of Cungcator ("you and JD a consensus do not make") rather monolithic view of the article (considering Axel now endorsed its deletion... ) I have penned [[Death to Kikes]], an informative article about kikes... and soon to come:
Shouldn't that be [[Death to Kikes slogan]]? And shouldn't the article be about the slogan, not about Jews? To be analogous to the AKFD case, that is.
-- Toby
**(AKFD VF Deletion text attached)
Vicki: How about an apology for your anti-Semitism and blatant trolling,
Steve?
Youre calling me a racist Vicki? Race is a non-issue to me. Ill apologise for my racism, when you apologise for the apparent cultural self-centrism that caused you to miss the *point* entirely.
Toby: Shouldn't that be [[Death to Kikes slogan]]?
And shouldn't the article be about the slogan, not about Jews? To be analogous to the AKFD case, that is.
Ah youre right... I forgot the 'little quotes' - ask Vicki what she thinks.. The point is that neither should be there; your failure to stand up for consistent principle, not to mention, get the point.. is invitation to a whole can of worms you all don't want to go into. Its up to you to express intelligent thought here, and not fall back on the lasseiz faire doctrine of "document everything".. If you look at the AKFD talk pages... and the Votes for deletion.. There was consensus reached as far as how to handle the material... Only Cungcator and Axel pushed it forth...And Axel backed off... After deleting the page, Cuncator took it upon himself to revive the redirect to article status... the Deletion page was cleared by Mav simply for size issues... The point is that Cunk has been completely monolithic on this... and people out of some nonsense lack of desire to make a principled stand have allowed this to fester.. and I think James's rather substantive contributions are dwindling, out of a lack of interest, due to a lack of consistency in treatment. Cuncators Sysop status is directly at odds with his heavy handed behaviour regarding this page - contradiction Jim's notions that sysops stay neutral. Dont expect the answer to come from the top... Jim stays neutral because hes hoping people can find resolutions on their own... You comprende, Victoria? -SV
I respectfully disagree with the honorable member's position. Zoe brought the issue to Jimbo's attention and to the mailing list, so there is much discussion and a resolution to be found in due course. --The Cunctator
From Talk:Anti-Gay slogan:
Cuncator::I respectfully disagree with the honorable member's position.
Zoe brought the issue to Jimbo's attention and to the mailing list, so there is much discussion and a resolution to be found in due course.
James::No. Another falsehood. There was a discussion and a solution which
Cunctator deliberately destroyed by (a) renaming the page after most people had agreed on a replacement name suggested by Stevertigo and were adding to its contents, (b) creating a dodgy replacement POV article so that the page could not be restored to its agreed location. Zoe and everyone else isn't looking for a discussion - there was one. And a solution. They are complaining about Cunctator's outrageous and deliberate scrapping of the agreed solution so he can use his 'pet name', one which Jimbo has suggested is in clear breach of Wiki naming conventions.
At 10:24 AM 3/19/03 -0800, you wrote:
**(AKFD VF Deletion text attached)
Vicki: How about an apology for your anti-Semitism and blatant trolling,
Steve?
Youre calling me a racist Vicki? Race is a non-issue to me. Ill apologise for my racism, when you apologise for the apparent cultural self-centrism that caused you to miss the *point* entirely.
You posted anti-Semitic material, and when called on it, instead of apologizing, you claim I missed the point. When you communicate stupidly, it is not the reader's fault that she cannot read your mind.
Also, my name is not Victoria, it is Vicki.
Stevertigo wrote:
Cuncators Sysop status is directly at odds with his heavy handed behaviour regarding this page - contradiction Jim's notions that sysops stay neutral.
Are you accusing him of using sysop powers "in a fight" or merely of using ordinary wiki editing in a way that you don't like?
Sysops are held to a high level of accountability for using sysop powers, as they are supposed to be only "technical". But we are *all* held to a high level of accountability for ordinary editing, and there is no leeway for non-sysops on this.
Dont expect the answer to come from the top... Jim stays neutral because hes hoping people can find resolutions on their own... You comprende, Victoria? -SV
I generally find that if I keep my mouth shut for awhile, NPOV emerges. In this cases, we went over all this with the "Aids" slogan, and I thought the result was fine. I said my piece there.
Some slogans, even hateful slogans, are of sufficient historical (or other) importance that they can deserve a separate article. The Aids Kills Fags Dead slogan is a great example. When I first heard about the page, I thought, "Oh gosh, that doesn't sound like a valid article at all." But then I read the article and realized that it was a legitimate topic.
--Jimbo