[snip] 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. 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. 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. It's a question of vandalism, which is an issue I was specifically trying not to address. Vandalism is bad, no argument. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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.

Erik Moeller a écrit: 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.