--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:54:17 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Many months ago, we made it impossible to link to
external images,
because we were fighting to avoid the goatse. Now, several wikipedias are dirtied by the
pornographic images available
on the english wikipedia. So, I suggest that
- either we all agree to share common images,
since they can impact us
and in this case, I would like that a common vote
is held to decide the
deletion of this image from the english wikipedia
- or we agree that no local projects should be
submitted to the
editorial choices made by other projects and
redirections between
projects should be cancelled
- or we find a filtering solution, so that certain
images not welcome to
other projects may not be redirected.
In case of all sensible images such as the
autofellatio, it should be
the project choice whether to display it or not.
And I think the
multiplication of complaints on the topic requires
to think about a
viable solution for all of us.
Let me suggest the correct course of action:
If your interest is to censor encyclopedic content on any wikimedia wikipedia, then your goals are at odds with the goals of the foundation.
I am not exactly sure who is "you" in your sentence.
Unless I am entirely mistaken somewhere, I was elected to be a representative of editors. Now, I have three different wikipedia editors contacting me to raise this issue which is important to them, and asking me to help them find the right solution, most approved by the community.
So, there are two options * either I accordingly receive their complaints and report them so that a solution be found and editors happy again * or I just tell them to mind their own business and find a solution all by themselves.
I tend to think the first case fit with my role.
Second, I am well aware some editors are supporting keeping these images, for whatever reasons. I support keeping them WHEN they are informative, which all the veneral diseases definitly are. I do not think this autofellatio image is, and am quite glad to replace it directly online with Rama's drawing.
Lastly, whatever the decision is, keeping the image or not keeping the image, this image has NOTHING to do on a user talk page.
Because you do not share the same
goals, you should fork and produce your own project with censorship among it's goals.
Who is "you" ???
May I suggest that the english wikipedia is NOT the Foundation. And that if I recognise the rights of the english wikipedia to decide itself what is good taste from what is bad taste, I do not recognise its right to decide alone what is censorship and what is not censorship. And I do not recognise its right to decide what should be on all the other projects from what should be absolutely.
Asking that porn pictures be not displayed largely on user talk page is frankly not a question of censorship, it is a question of civility.
And when editors are complaining of large vandalism displaying porn pictures on their talk page, I think it would be good manner to recognise there is a problem and find a solution to it.
If you continue to endorse censorship you are harming the project. Please allow those who want to share knowledge freely the ability to do so on wikipedia by taking your censorship someplace else.
I admire your ability to discuss an issue. I report 3 different wikipedias complaints about large scale vandalisme, and your answer is "fork".
The claim that pages are somehow 'dirtied' by a mere image speaks strongly about your lack of neutral perspective.
There is currently strong support for deleting this image.
And yes, if I find my user page replaced by a man sucking his cock, forgive me, but I find this to be dirty.
Wiki vandalism is unfortunate, but it is not a sufficient cause to reduce the available knowledge and the free exchange of information to mankind. It is not an excuse for censorship.
I do not think a talk page being replaced by pornographic pictures will reduce world knowledge. And I do not think a man sucking is cock being limited on one article only rather than thousand of pages will be a bad blow in free exchange of information.
However, I do think that such reactions to other people opinions is a bad blow in wikilove that we should all try to respect.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
[snip]
Lastly, whatever the decision is, keeping the image or not keeping the image, this image has NOTHING to do on a user talk page.
Which is why I had carefully selected which part of your text I was replying to... I think the redirect problem can be solved and I wasn't trying to discuss it further, I think vandalism stinks thought the existing methods work pretty well and new protections will come overtime.... I wasn't trying to address the vandalism issue.
My concern was that you appear to be supporting the idea that due to differences in cultural norms it is acceptable to censor content on some wikipedias and not others. If I have misunderstood you I apologise.
It is my strongly held position that if you wish to censor, then you are not in agreement with the ideals of the overall project and you would be better off with your own fork.
Who is "you" ???
Whomever you speak for that has decided that whatever language you are editing needs a differing policy with respect to neutrality and censorship than the more heavily trafficed wikipedias.
May I suggest that the english wikipedia is NOT the Foundation. And that if I recognise the rights of the english wikipedia to decide itself what is good taste from what is bad taste, I do not recognise its right to decide alone what is censorship and what is not censorship. And I do not recognise its right to decide what should be on all the other projects from what should be absolutely.
Is there not a consensus that denying, by policy, the inclusion of useful, informative, and encyclopedic information is censorship?
Of course everyone has a right to decide what you will add... but if you wish to procedurally remove informative contributions because of some non-neutral position, than you would be better off involved with another project that includes such a non-neutral slant as part of its charter.
Asking that porn pictures be not displayed largely on user talk page is frankly not a question of censorship, it is a question of civility.
It's a question of vandalism, which is an issue I was specifically trying not to address. Vandalism is bad, no argument.
And when editors are complaining of large vandalism displaying porn pictures on their talk page, I think it would be good manner to recognise there is a problem and find a solution to it.
Agreed.
However, your proposals included censoring wikipedia. Not only would this not solve your problem (bad guy just uploads the image under a new name and you're even more shocked, because you cant just click the firefox adfilter plugin option to block it forever if they keep changing the name), but it is not an acceptable means for preventing vandalism because it compromises the core goals of the project.
I admire your ability to discuss an issue. I report 3 different wikipedias complaints about large scale vandalisme, and your answer is "fork".
I admire your ability to discuss an issue. Three different wikipedias have a problem with a class of vandalism which can be reduced by simple technical/procedural means (soft redirects + three mouse clicks), and your answer is to censor.
There is currently strong support for deleting this image.
Throughout history there has been strong support for a lot of things that we view in hindsight as very wrong. Neutrality is a core value of these projects. By supporting this venture you are attempting to impose your values on others, it's not neutral. If we abandon this goal in the favor of a few practical gains we abandon much of what makes the project special.
Wiki vandalism is unfortunate, but it is not a sufficient cause to reduce the available knowledge and the free exchange of information to mankind. It is not an excuse for censorship.
I do not think a talk page being replaced by pornographic pictures will reduce world knowledge. And I do not think a man sucking is cock being limited on one article only rather than thousand of pages will be a bad blow in free exchange of information.
Why do you now limit your remedies to talk pages? In your initial message you proposed censoring the images available for use in all wikipedias to be the least common denominator. It would hurt knowledge, and it wouldn't help your goal. I'd attach a copy of the image to this email to demonstrate how censoring wikipedia doesn't protect you from unwanted content.... If you're that concerned, you can browse with images off. (or use the firefox adblock plugin to filter it with two mouse clicks).
However, I do think that such reactions to other people opinions is a bad blow in wikilove that we should all try to respect.
I respect peoples feelings, but feelings are more transitory than freedom and feelings are less universal than knowledge. If the project goals were amended to say that it is the primary objective to make people feel good, then I would not be making the same argument now.
Ant-
Unless I am entirely mistaken somewhere, I was elected to be a representative of editors.
Just to clarify, in case you are referring to your official position, you were elected to be the representative of "contributing members" (paying members of the Wikimedia Foundation). Angela was elected to be the representative of volunteer editors. The distinction has become moot at this point.
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Ant-
Unless I am entirely mistaken somewhere, I was elected to be a representative of editors.
Just to clarify, in case you are referring to your official position, you were elected to be the representative of "contributing members" (paying members of the Wikimedia Foundation). Angela was elected to be the representative of volunteer editors. The distinction has become moot at this point.
Erik
Yup. You are absolutely right. I do not represent anyone somehow. The good point is that mean I can choose to represent who I wish to, and I can choose to take in to account the opinions I wish to.
Till today, I chose to represent absolutely every editor on all projects and to listen to all.
Today, it is everyone minus one.
Bad move.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org