On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:32:12 +0200, Anthere
But is it
appropriate for people to organize flash mobs to go vote on
content in an encyclopedia that they don't even use?
No. And this was *precisely* what was happening. And this was one of the
reasons why I brought attention to the list about it. And this was
precisely why helping to decrease the amount of vandalism on one pedia
resulting in the decision taken by another pedia could help.
There is a saying : good fences make good neighbours.
But why not start by calling out the unacceptable behavior? ... That
sort of ballot stuffing is just unacceptable. We don't need to judge
the cause to judge the result as a turn for the bad.
perhaps not a tragedy, but yes, it occurred. It
occurred because people
were tired to fight this type vandalism.
If this turns out to actually help in the slightest against this form
of vandalism, then I think we can say with confidence that the
vandalism was an intentional effort to get the content removed and we
should be really disappointed that we have allowed the system to be
abused in that way.... even if we personally wanted the image gone.
Especially
since the use of that image in vandalism could very well
have been the actions of strongly POVed people who wanted it removed
to suit their prudish wishes (not saying that all who want it gone are
prudes...)
Not sure about that. I think the primary reason was to prevent vandalism...
You've said this... but I don't understand. I could go find another
image you will find offensive, and have it up in minutes. Then
another, and another. At least if the vandal always used that
specific image it would be easy to block personally (install firefox
adblock plugin, rightclick on image, select block this image), so that
you could remove it without having to look at it.
As far as
being neutral on the image. I've seen it a few times and
have utterly no emotional reaction to it, when I first saw it I said
"ha, I bet that causes edit wars". ::shrugs:: Not everyone makes a
big deal out of sexual things. To each his own.
Neutrality is not even about being non-reactive about a topic.
You suggested that no one could be neutral about the image, ... I
disagree... It is my position that to some people the image is no
different than a picture of a desk. I don't claim that response has a
1:1 relationship with neutrality, but rather that the image isn't
necessarily as special as you may think it is... If you find it hard
to imagine that view, don't feel bad... While I understand that many
people are highly offended by such things, I just can't see it
myself.. It seems silly, but I respect that people differ.
Ultimately If someone can be neutral about a picture of a desk, then
someone can be neutral about that picture. But this is offtopic for
the current discussion.