On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:45:45 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
He seems to think that you were directly suggesting
Ant fork, which is
definitely not the case. (as far as I can tell, you are saying that
she is at odds with foundation philosophy and that if she really wants
to have a Wikipedia where it doesn't follow philosophy, she can make a
fork; rather than a suggestion that she really should)
This is quite correct...
In this case it my be a matter of my debate style, which usually works
exceedingly well in person (more indirect communication channels), but
sometimes fails miserably in email.
I think it's useful to extrapolate past any unknowns, draw some
conclusions related to what I care about most, and let discussion
refine the accuracy of those conclusions. This usually results in
everyone's position being accurately determined in a minimum number of
exchanges.
The statement about the fork was by large a trueism... if someone
actually disagrees with the fundimental goals, they should fork.... At
the least it's an *option* for someone who is upset about the
continued inclusion of offensive images.
I think it's a reasonable additional option for any group that is
upset about the content of the wikipedia that is not removed because
we are making an effort to impose our values on the articles.
I don't want anyone to fork, but I think that preserving core goals is
much more important than avoiding forking.
There are a million ways I could have been (and most likely was) wrong
with my assumptions, but it would be dishonest of me to end my
statement with a wimpy 'this doesn't sound like the type of policy
that we want' ... I believed certain views were being proposed, and
pointed out what I thought they would or perhaps should result in... I
think it is better to completely expose my assumptions, and the
seriousness of the matter right away so that the other side has the
chance to put me in my place as quickly as possible.
Now that we've gone off on a tangent because I was too hasty with my
statements....
This still leave us, I think, with Anthere proposing that differing
languages should have differing limitations on permitted content
because of cultural norms.
Lets ignore the problem of mapping cultures to languages for a
moment... I still think that this leaves us in a position of deciding
about content based on a (perhaps mob rule driven) value judgement of
good vs bad knowledge, rather than the simple basis of deciding
based of the ability of the information to inform and educate. I know
censorship is a hot word, but I think it applies well to this
situation, no matter how noble our goals are.
I think this is worth discussion.