On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala <aprabhala(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic<millosh(a)gmail.com>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker<risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
>>> the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
>>> US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a
>>> 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
>>> 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,
> all men - similarly, cultures are not
homogenous. It is hard to
> on any of these bases (plural of
'basis'), because there is no simple
> Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender
> culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.
> Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what?
> 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
> And yes, I'm against censorship, but as
I've said before, I don't see
> filter as proposed as censorship.
> The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And
> as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why
> it so wrong to even think about the person
who does flinch when he or
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
what not. It should not be our job to censor our
own content. The
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
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then
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
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
Film censor board of India, but you probably know
more about them than
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?