On 5/8/07, Silas Snider <swsnider(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:42:35 -0700, "Todd
Allen" <toddmallen(a)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(a)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.
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.