Re David's point that "The trouble with responding on the blog is that
responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered". I can relate to that, it
isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with
timestamps long after my post. I don't know whether that was me not knowing
how to do blog replies or something else. But the solution is in our hands,
I've now posted my blog response in
where
really it should have gone in the first place.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:56:02 -0700
From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<CAAi3vqFkVi6_-8gC-9yrPkECfXaGhzTctt-TRb4AnXkBaHDnKA(a)mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell
<keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
>> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. ?Naturally, please
>> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
>> conversation about the image filter.
> The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
> being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
> So here's one that's
particularly apposite:
http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-let…
> He's the primary author of
[[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
> manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that
> "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say
> any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.
> - d.
For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to
make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments
notwithstanding)... I can't speak for Sue, of course, but when I read
the blog post I see nothing in there that says she is referring to the
author of this particular article (she refers only to the decision to
put the article on the mainpage, presumably not something that can be
traced to a single person).
The quotation you have made stands as a separate point, and is
unrelated to the discussion of the de main page above. She simply
says: "Those community members who are acting like provocateurs and
agitators need to stop." -- not identifying particular people, or even
particular topics. When I read this, what comes to *my* mind is some
of the recent dialog on Foundation-l -- some of which was certainly
intentionally provocative, and some of which did get very personal and
personally hurtful, to myself and others.
Sue's post is *not about the image filter*. It's about the dialog
around the image filter, some of which has been great and some of
which has sucked. It is, indeed, hard to talk to people when they
attack you for it. But I don't think there was any attacking in Sue's
post.
-- phoebe