On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabhala@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta<bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is
intimidating
to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
seeing
the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
from
the
US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman
from
the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
such
posts in the future.
As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures.
I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter,
nor
all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to
generalize
on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple correlation.
Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender
or
culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.
Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what?
That
doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser
human.
And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see
the
filter as proposed as censorship.
The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And just as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why
is
it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or
she
sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.
Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
and
what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The
strongest
argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which
use
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different
would
we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues
or
Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than
me.
There is a big difference between *ratings* and *censorship*, a difference which the Indian government has routinely ignored or deliberately overlooked, as, I suspect is happening here in this discussion. Naturally, there are circumstances where ratings systems can be used to create effective censorship, but this doesn't have to be the case, and indeed isn't in various parts of the world - evidenced by the fact that virtually every country in the world has a ratings system for film. (Including Germany, by the way).
How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?
Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?
No.
I'm suggesting that:
Ratings are different from censorship.
Sometimes, ratings can be used to create censorship.
Often, ratings do just that - rate.
For film.
In several countries around the world, including India, and Germany.
Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l