On 30 September 2011 10:36, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are
in favor of filter
(though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
(Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating,
and it is intimidating
others who may have useful and progressive ideas
but are repeatedly
the opinions of others dismissed because
they're women/not women or from
US/not from the US. The implication of your post
is "if you're a woman
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.
I think you're reading too much into this - he was replying to two
other posts on the subject purely by adding information. The question
of "what do women think about the image filter? What about women in
different regions?" is of some relevance - it's useful to try to
understand both the ways in which men and women see this issue
differently, and the impact of cultural origins on views. Not sure why
he said "tactically" re Sarah, but he probably has a reason, and I
think Millosh is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog
post was about two basic issues:
*How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and
*The role of editorial judgment in selecting which content is most
educational, informative, appropriate and (in the case of images) aesthetic
in the content that the various projects present to the world at large in
our shared, collaborative quest to provide useful and educational
information and media to the entire world.
There has been a fair amount of nastiness aimed at specific individuals and
belittling of the opinions of others throughout this discussion. Just as
importantly, there has been a fair amount of unjustified categorization of,
and assumptions about, people's opinions (both pro and con) on the issue of
an image filter. We all are aware that this sort of behaviour detracts from
effective resolution of disputes. Xenophobia, sexism, and elitism do not
help us to meet our collective goals, nor does an insistence
on the discussion encompassing only very narrow parameters.
As to editorial judgment, we all know that just about every edit made to any
of our projects requires some degree of judgment. Even editors who focus
exclusively on vandal control have to exercise such judgment to ensure that
they do not reinsert inappropriate information when reverting an apparent
vandal. Projects have countless policies and guidelines that direct editors
in their selection of material to be included, and under what circumstances.
Article improvement processes on each Wikipedia are geared toward assisting
editors to select the best and most subject-appropriate content, to present
it in a well-written and visually attractive way, and to ensure that key
information on the topic is included, while trivia is limited or
"Wikipedia is not censored" is not a reason to include or exclude
information within a specific article: it is the philosophy that makes it
clear that Wikipedia provides educational and informative articles on
subjects whether or not that subject may be censored by external forces.
That is why we have articles about the Tiananmen Square protests, and the
Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi and frottage and vulva and Mohammed. Our
job is to present the information, regardless of whether these articles
could be censored somewhere in the world. How we present that information,
however, is a matter of editorial judgment.