is on the AACS crack article on es:wp, and they say they're not going to remove it because en:wp doesn't have it - not unless and until the Foundation declares it must go.
- d.
On Tue, 8 May 2007 08:24:01 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
is on the AACS crack article on es:wp, and they say they're not going to remove it because en:wp doesn't have it - not unless and until the Foundation declares it must go.
Very mature.
Guy (JzG)
Since when does maturity consist of slavishly conforming to everyone else? Especially about something that is as ill-defined as this?
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 5/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 08:24:01 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
is on the AACS crack article on es:wp, and they say they're not going to remove it because en:wp doesn't have it - not unless and until the Foundation declares it must go.
Very mature.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 8 May 2007 10:52:08 -0700, "Silas Snider" swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
Since when does maturity consist of slavishly conforming to everyone else? Especially about something that is as ill-defined as this?
Maturity does not consist of doing something just because someone else won't.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 08:24:01 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
is on the AACS crack article on es:wp, and they say they're not going to remove it because en:wp doesn't have it - not unless and until the Foundation declares it must go.
Very mature.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Since when is it immature to think for oneself? The Foundation, by issuing a pretty emphatic No Comment, did make it pretty clear that it's up to the individual projects. And they've stated that they will remove it if the Foundation decides that it must be removed. I see nothing immature about that.
On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:42:35 -0700, "Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Since when is it immature to think for oneself?
What's mature about doing something simply because someone else won't? In what way is that thinking for yourself? As said before, some people are so obsessed with getting one over on "the man" that they are brazenly insisting on a policy of "include until we get the takedown notice" which is a complete reversal of the correct approach, which is not to include controversial content until there is consensus to include it.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:42:35 -0700, "Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Since when is it immature to think for oneself?
What's mature about doing something simply because someone else won't? In what way is that thinking for yourself? As said before, some people are so obsessed with getting one over on "the man" that they are brazenly insisting on a policy of "include until we get the takedown notice" which is a complete reversal of the correct approach, which is not to include controversial content until there is consensus to include it.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
I think that it is simplistic to characterize es's decision as a pure knee jerk reaction against en. I took their stance as "Well, we believe that we should include the key as a repository of knowledge, and the wikipedia that normally includes everything is falling down on the job, so it's up to us to have it." While this may not jive with your views on the matter, it is a valid and reasonable idea, and should not be dismissed on grounds of immaturity.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 5/8/07, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:42:35 -0700, "Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Since when is it immature to think for oneself?
What's mature about doing something simply because someone else won't? In what way is that thinking for yourself? As said before, some people are so obsessed with getting one over on "the man" that they are brazenly insisting on a policy of "include until we get the takedown notice" which is a complete reversal of the correct approach, which is not to include controversial content until there is consensus to include it.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
I think that it is simplistic to characterize es's decision as a pure knee jerk reaction against en. I took their stance as "Well, we believe that we should include the key as a repository of knowledge, and the wikipedia that normally includes everything is falling down on the job, so it's up to us to have it." While this may not jive with your views on the matter, it is a valid and reasonable idea, and should not be dismissed on grounds of immaturity.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
--
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious Editing Club of Wikipedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And those are exactly my feelings, as well. It's our job to provide specific, factual information. We're not going to post detailed instructions on using the thing, nor should we, we're not for howto manuals. But we certainly should include the information itself. If there are legal concerns that come up, the foundation will OFFICE it if need be. It's not necessary for us to play amateur lawyer, and aside the amateur lawyering, there's no reason whatsoever not to include the actual key value. We can source it, it's certainly an integral part of the controversy, and if it weren't for the legal bit, no one would have a bit of trouble putting it in.