I think Ed is tired of me. Actually, I don't just think he is, I know he is. I'm going to try to respond again, but I'll make it as direct to the key points as I can. Also, since I'd like to stop fanning the flames (in the hope that what I'm saying will actually be thought about), this will be my only post to wikipedia-l today.
Ed Poor wrote:
...as if you had no idea that it was the judgment of wrongness of the act that justified force to prevent it...
I'm taking the liberty to restate how I understand your position.
1: gang smashing windows -> wrongful act 2: wrongful act -> force justification 3: force justification -> calling police
you insinuate that I hold the opposite opinion: that the *power* to enforce a standard of right and wrong somehow *defines* that standard.
I didn't intend to make an insinuation regarding your opinions. What I mean to do is point out that you are relying upon your personal sense of right and wrong.
Put yourself in the shoes of the gang after the police arrive. Their personal sense of right and wrong could very well lead to this line of reasoning.
1: police interference -> wrongful act 2: wrongful act -> force justification 3: force justification -> capture of police
The question before us, as I see it, is what makes Ed's personal sense of right and wrong any superior to the gang's personal sense of right and wrong. Ed was kind enough to share with us one possible "set of absolutes":
Here are the moral absolutes I believe in:
It is evil to harm another person for my own benefit.
It is good to benefit another person.
This is a perfectly reasonable set of core beliefs, but that doesn't mean that all people have to share these same beliefs. Nor is it clear that all people who did share these beliefs would apply them the same way.
TMC, you sound like a relativist. You seem to claim, I may do whatever I wish and no one has a right to restrain me.
Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock can do whatever he pleases? The end result is the same either way, since I see your actions and my actions as morally equal. Just so there is no doubt, here is what I am saying:
* Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the right to restrain him.
* Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the right to restrain him.
* Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
* Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
Paraphrasing a private email I had with another wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house smashing my car window then I am going to go outside and use force to stop them. What I'm not going to do is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any way, or that I had some "right" to stop them. I'm simply using my ability to project force to enforce my will over them.
...unless you're too chicken (or just being cocky).
Cool! Two puns for the price of one.
--Cock
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock can do whatever he pleases? The end result is the same either way, since I see your actions and my actions as morally equal. Just so there is no doubt, here is what I am saying:
Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the right to restrain him.
Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the right to restrain him.
Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
Paraphrasing a private email I had with another wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house smashing my car window then I am going to go outside and use force to stop them. What I'm not going to do is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any way, or that I had some "right" to stop them. I'm simply using my ability to project force to enforce my will over them.
First regarding the logical argument that seems to be in progress:
I agree with both Ed and TMC that our rules, customs and application of force to enforce them are currently ill defined, sporadically and inconsistently applied.
Second on a practical note:
Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock in use as accounts names and spread throughout the Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of the database and site for a lot of potential users.
Specific example: A few months ago I was looking forward to coaching some nieces and nephews in some composition efforts collaboratively here. IMHO Since most of my extended family and better educated friends believe kids/minors should learn to function in polite society first (by example) and pick up gutter slang as appropriate later; the lack of effective well defined customs and consistent enforcement against all (yes even founders, moderators, nonmembers of the nonexistent cabal or elite, newbies, and other special people in self defined categories) severely compromises the utility of the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and its ability to attract and help train future effective Wikipedians.
The above should not be construed as advocating censorship in the articles. Merely opposing the use of loopholes in our system structure to spread graffiti, taunts, etc. potentially offensive to large groups of people.
Regards, Mike Irwin
Mike Irwin wrote: Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock in use as accounts names and spread throughout the Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of the database and site for a lot of potential users.
My reply:
Could pages be rated for maturity and the appropriate rating meta tag be inserted into the page header for childproofing software?
Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
Mike Irwin wrote: Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock in use as accounts names and spread throughout the Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of the database and site for a lot of potential users.
My reply:
Could pages be rated for maturity and the appropriate rating meta
tag be inserted into the page header for childproofing software?
Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
On one hand .... Anything is possible given sufficient free labor and infinite time. Whether volunteers think it is reasonable or worthwhile for implementation is another question.
It is my experience that most of my relatives and friends do not mess around with kiddie censorship or spy software. It is sufficient that the kids know where they should or should not be and that they have occasional adult advice/supervision. If they do not use the computer responsibly, then they do not use it for a while. Remarkably repressive I know but it seems effective. They seem to absorb what parents or "Uncle" Mike will view as "responsible" quite quickly, their furtive behavorial cues inviting a spot check makes baby sitting or casual supervision fairly easy and amusing.
If this nonsense can be easily avoided then the adults will mandate that it should be avoided. If the adults find it permeates the site past a threshhold, the site will be placed off limits. Probably redundant. The kids know the basic rules, no spy/censorsihp software required, we check on our minors periodically, and they learn rapidly.
Also, one kind of has to wonder if an account name like Throbbing Monster Cock; and the associated visual humor; is a cruising tool for a potential child molester. Of the adults I know, some would find it amusing in private while most would not consider it appropriate public humor with minors present in the audience.
Have we determined what our target audience for Wikipedia (online and derivative products) should be? The last attempted discussion I saw on the topic at meta was cut short due to uncivil behavior.
It would certainly seem, to me, more appropriate free speech to exercise at an adult porn site rather than a general encyclopedia site.
Finally, IMO, it is unreasonable to expect kids to use an encyclopedia where pages and utilities are randomly and arbitarily (from the minor's perspective) restricted due to the casual dropin of a flashing account name.
Consider the following operational scenario:
1. A minor is checking occasionally to see if an answer to their question on a science or math talk page has appeared from one of the admired Wikipedian authors. 2. Suddenly due to [[Throbbing Monster Cock]] attempting to flash them with this signature, they are restricted from the applicable talk page.
Not a very good operational scenario in my view.
So I say censorship software is probably a waste of time and undesirable. A public librarian or school board might have a different perspective. Likewise other parents and relatives with different rearing habits or experiences.
Regards, Mike Irwin
--- "Michael R. Irwin" mri_icboise@surfbest.net wrote:
So I say censorship software is probably a waste of time and undesirable. A public librarian or school board might have a different perspective. Likewise other parents and relatives with different rearing habits or experiences.
Yeah, I agree. In fact, there are a lot more interesting things to look at on the internet for a kid than an encyclopedia, no matter how "racy" it might be.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Mike Irwin wrote: Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock in use as accounts names and spread throughout the Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of the database and site for a lot of potential users.
Agreed. We have already lost Isis because of this. Let's agree on policy & then a) removed "Fucking Asshole" (it was Ed making a point, wasn't it?) and b) insist "Throbbing Monster Cock" choose a different name
My reply:
Could pages be rated for maturity and the appropriate rating meta tag be inserted into the page header for childproofing software?
I don't see a problem in a page like "fuck" -- it discusses the etymology, history and suitability of a word which a child can find in a dictionary (and hear on television). I would much rather a child, on hearing the word, went to look it up on wikipedia to rather than mindlessly repeat it.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org