Have you ever read through the comments section of any relatively
high-traffic website? Try the washington post, or digg, or youtube.
I can't spend 10 minutes reading those things without shaking my head
in disgust. Libel, racism, sexism, hatred etc. All by supposedly
moderated websites. We absolutely do not want wikinews turning into
that.
-Dan Rosenthal
On Nov 6, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Brian McNeil wrote:
What is being missed here is *Wikinews' comment
namespace is
outside NPOV*.
We want opinions, we want people proposing half-assed solutions and
getting
them shot down in flames. We want people to come back to Wikinews
to see
what issues catch their attention and provoke them to
{{haveyoursay}}. I
think that particular template goes on virtually every single new
article.
It is positive feedback for our contributors because they get to
see people
are reading their articles and are provoked to comment on them.
For some the blunt, but succinct, "Don't be a jerk" is not the way
WM should
do things, and I have sympathy for their point of view. If someone
can come
up with something as pithy in about 10 words or less I'd be happy
to see it.
On the other hand, I'd remind people who have a focus on other
projects that
Wikinews is, well, a news site. Every article we keep makes its
appearance
on the front page. What we have here is an online equivalent of
letters to
the editor, but with retroactive moderation. There has been limited
use of
profanity on these pages to date, but some have been very active
and are now
longer than the articles they are attached to.
My personal favourite... (from [[WN:BJAODN]])
Article:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Nebraska_Senator_sues_God
Comment: "In a stunning twist, God countersued the entire human
race for
distruction of property and loitering. "I clearly said they could
eat of any
tree except that one. That fruit was off limits," He remarked, "But
did they
listen? No. There are consequences, people!" Meanwhile, Morgan
Freeman sued
the senator for infringement of "look and feel." --76.18.66.115
02:37, 19
September 2007 (UTC)".
Brian.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
David Gerard
Sent: 06 November 2007 15:19
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Do we need a Code of Participation?
On 06/11/2007, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
David, 'because everybody does it' is not
an excuse to do
something in the
Wikimedia Projects. Wikimedia must create its own distinct
identity; and
its
reputation and credibility will be a great part
of that identity -
and its
use of language a crucial part as well.
The language of social pages should not be the language of Wikimedia
policies.
No, I mean it's actually, functionally speaking, the first rule of all
social spaces on and offline.
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l