Am 29.09.2011 17:00, schrieb Nathan:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David
Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll
that was 85% against
any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.
As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the
indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will
convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.
- d.
It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your
constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and
diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude
that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and
homogenous slice of that array (i.e. contributors)... Ignoring the
opposition in favor of the "larger audience" could then be quite
reasonable.
Nathan
If it would be the case, that this is a small minority, then i could
agree and accept that as consensus, even if reasonable arguments were
ignored. But what the post does is very simple. It describes liberal
thinking people as a minority - as an extremist minority - that does not
care about the readers or the project. That isn't any better then the
"we are not censored, we can do it" argument. It's the plain opposite,
but not better or worse. It's the tale about others that might be offended.
What we really need is the discussion if an image is illustrative for
the topic. We want to spread knowledge. This does not mean to:
a) to leave out illustrative material because is offensive.
b) to include offensive material if something else has the same
illustrative value.
The image filter, as a tool, is meant to circumvent this question and
it's answers. Instead of trying to improve the content or providing
better alternatives it's just the same as to say: "we don't care, you
have to choose", ignoring all possible negative side effects.