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 BSc
[IMSoP]