Christiaan Briggs christiaan at last-straw.net: :On 24 Feb 2005, at 6:49 pm, Rowan Collins wrote: :> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:07:57 +1100, David Gerard :> <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
:>> What Gerard actually did with the above edit was take this paragraph:
:> This is just a non-permanent diff links problem :) The edit in :> question was unquestionably vandalism. :> The edit you're looking at it is me trying to be helpful; the one :> Christiaan posted (or meant to) was a revert of blanking the whole :> page.
:Oh, thanks, I thought I was going nuts for a second there!
You're right - looking at the history, that would be disrupting to make a point. This is probably not a helpful thing to do in a hot debate.
Is the present version sufficient for you? It's pretty much OK by me. GerardM?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Christiaan Briggs christiaan at last-straw.net: :On 24 Feb 2005, at 6:49 pm, Rowan Collins wrote: :> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:07:57 +1100, David Gerard :> <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
:>> What Gerard actually did with the above edit was take this paragraph:
:> This is just a non-permanent diff links problem :) The edit in :> question was unquestionably vandalism. :> The edit you're looking at it is me trying to be helpful; the one :> Christiaan posted (or meant to) was a revert of blanking the whole :> page.
:Oh, thanks, I thought I was going nuts for a second there!
You're right - looking at the history, that would be disrupting to make a point. This is probably not a helpful thing to do in a hot debate.
Is the present version sufficient for you? It's pretty much OK by me. GerardM?
- d.
Hoi, First of all, The current version is not sufficient. It does not address any of the concerns that I have about this thing. My point has been consistently been reverted and if it wasn't such an important issue I would have found it a rediculous issue. All the comments that I had added have been moved away and it now gives the impression that it is a squaky clean suggestion and that it is not controversial at all.
Secondly, you state that it was vandalism. Fine, then what label does the manner that my contributions were treated with deserve ?
This whole proposal is about introducing censorship into the wikimedia projects and it should be introduced into the Mediawiki software itself. Images are only to be used after carefull consideration. Default settings have to be found to prevent the public from seeing "offensive" material. What offensive material is, is not specified. It is denied that it has anything to do with censorship. The 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. Now you ask me if the current version is sufficient ?
On a different subject. Angela has rightfully complained that this subject is not what the Foundation mailing list is for. This is the reason why I have stopped responding on this list. But as it has not stopped and I have been asked a direct question
Thanks, No thanks ! Gerard
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:04:40 +0100, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, 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.
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 clear.
[...] The 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.
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.
On a different subject. Angela has rightfully complained that this subject is not what the Foundation mailing list is for.
Yes, apologies to those who are annoyed by this traffic; moving threads to a better forum is not something that mailing lists are good at. :( In fact, I should probably have refrained from being drawn so far into this debate anyway...
Rowan Collins wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:04:40 +0100, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, 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 clear.
My mistake, it is not my mother language :)
[...] The 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.
Thanks, No thanks ! GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Rowan Collins wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, 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.
I would suggest a little patience Gerard. I hope to post some pros and cons in the next couple of days. I've spent a lot of my time dealing with vandalism etc., so you'll have to excuse me for not having the time for more constructive things.
Christiaan
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org