Rowan Collins wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:04:40 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
First of all, The current version is not sufficient. It does not address
any of the concerns that I have about this thing.
No, but it does state *why* it doesn't address them, and point to
another page reserved specifically *for* addressing them.
Which is where they do not justify their own proposal. So in essence it
is just a move to rid themselves of what they see as off topic.
This whole proposal is about introducing
censorship into the wikimedia
projects and it should be introduced into the Mediawiki software itself.
"...should be introduced"? I see only a discussion of how it *could*
be implemented. That is what my extra sentence was trying to make
My mistake, it is not my mother language :)
arguments about this are
hiden in a discussion that was held on the en:wikipedia mailing list.
All stuff that is in opposition to this proposal is moved away to a
place that does not even discuss why this idea would be proper.
Your second sentence contradicts your first (they're not hidden away,
they've been moved to a page you're not satisfied with). *So use that
place to discuss those issues.* Christiaan et al have stated that the
particular page in question is not intended to cover those issues, and
I don't think the fact that one debate is separated into 2 pages, each
covering a well-defined aspect, is "hiding" or "denying" anything;
it's separating it.
The discussion was moved from the talk page. It is now out of contex as
the stuff it reacts to is not there. The argument is, that this reflects
what was discussed on the en:wikipedia mailing list. They have not given
the arguments in there and use it as justification for their proposal
for this censoring mechanism.
Clearly, both sides have strong opinions on this, but
if people want
to explore the technical possibilities *at the same time as* the
desirability, then who are you to stop them?
The statement I added, making clear that this was *not* a "fait
accompli", and was *not* actively in development, and would *not* be
carried through without discussion of its desirability, seems to be
approved by the authors/backers of that page, and so presumably
reflects their own claim.
Do you not believe them? Because if you *do* believe them, then you
should be able to carry on making the case for the undesirability, and
ignore their technical musings in the hope [or, indeed, belief] that
such will have been a waste of time once you have presented a
well-argued and coherent case why it would be a bad idea to try.
What is there to believe. I can believe that they assume that this will
be all the censorship we will have. I do believe that this is the
beginning of the end of a free encyclopeida that aims tp contain all
knowledge. They will say that this is a straw mans argument. :(
So what is there but frustration. Frustration for seeing that censorship
is being pushed. The worst thing is that I can see them get this
censorship thing into Mediawiki because there is always someone capable
and willing of coding this.
No thanks !