Perhaps a better example is the article on Santa Claus. If you look at the
talkpage, you'll find a couple of people protesting that it isn't a
"child-friendly" article, by which they really mean that we don't
along" with the Santa charade like NORAD, Google and countless other
prominent examples. Of course, not playing along is the CORRECT course of
action, that is what our principles tell us to do - we shouldn't be
knowingly providing false information to anybody, whatever our intention.
(In my opinion, the Santa Claus article doesn't state clearly enough that
Santa Claus is not a real person, due to the persistent efforts of two or
three editors who want the article to be more "child friendly")
So yes, lots of people think what we're doing is wrong, but so what? You
can never please anybody. That is why you need to choose a set of
principles and stick with them. At least that way, when people don't like
what you're doing, you can point to your principles and say "Hey, we've
always been this way" and you get credibility from having had the same
policy or position all along.
2012/2/6 M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>
Yes, and some people don't like the fact that we
tell the truth about,
say, the Taiwan situation (or at least we try our very best to), or the
Tienanmen Square protests of 1989.
I think it's very stupid to equate "people don't like this" to
"this is a
So yes, the situation is still unchanged, but in my opinion it is a GOOD
thing that it's still unchanged. The advertising situation on Wikipedia is
"still unchanged", but unchanged situations don't have to be bad, and in
this case I am a firm believer that the status quo is far better than what
this woman (and many image filter proposals) is proposing.
2012/2/2 Andreas K. <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:35:10 +0000, "Andreas
A Wikimedian has just started a Facebook page
"Stop pornography on
If I read it correct, she opened a Facebook group since, as she states,
she could not find anybody on Wikipedia who would share her opinion. I
not see why we should worry about this. There are
many people with their
own agenda who could not find anybody on Wikipedia to share their agenda
and go to promote it elsewhere.
Well, it's relevant to the extent that she came across a masturbation
while looking for something completely different. (I think she said she
looking up "roll over".) Some people don't like that. It's a problem
The situation is still unchanged.
foundation-l mailing list