Lars wrote:
Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make an investigation into who really sent that message.
SJC wrote:
It's much easier just to delete the pages you don't like or which don't suit your agenda, though, isn't it Magnus?
Steve Callaway
Stop it you two. Lars, Ed was trying to make a valid point and you repay that with a stupid, unproductive and unnecessarily combative response. Granted it wasn't the most productive way to accomplish his ends but Ed is one of our best, if not the best, community builders and he deserves much more respect than that. Your, comment, on the other hand, only tends to tear down community.
SJC, get over it. The wikipedia namespace is not a place for propaganda an POV divisiveness -- it is a place to describe and work on the /NPOV/ encyclopedia. You have already been told that you can use your user page or Meta for most of your POV needs. So this is hardly censorship when we offer you valid forums for this. Then there is also geocities, again free.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com writes:
You have already been told that you can use your user page or Meta for most of your POV needs. So this is hardly censorship when we offer you valid forums for this.
And even if we didn't it *still* wouldn't be censorship.
There is a lot of twaddle talked about censorship, Lets go to the OED.
CENSOR (n) a. transf. One who exercises official supervision over morals and conduct. b. spec. An official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the government. More explicitly dramatic censor, film censor.
You see that word *official*? Its important. What it means is this *Only governments can censor*
If I take a book I've written to a publishers and they say "No, we'll pass" - thats not censorship. If I print a magazine and a large chain of newsvendors refuse to stock it - thats not censorship. If I take a send a letter to the Times and they don't run it - thats not censorship. If I publish a webpage and the webhosts say "we don't want to host this" - thats not censorship. If I write a wikipedia article and Jimbo, or the community say "No thanks" - thats not censorship.
As someone very wisely said -- just yesterday : "It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia"
Now, before people get their panties in a knot over the "repression"[0] of the majority, they should be forced to repeat that 3 times. "It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia"
Once more for luck? "It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia"
If someone has the ability to edit wikipedia taken away from them, we're not harming them, we're not infringing on any right that they innately possess and we cannot -- by definition -- be censoring them.
[0] And what a feeble middle class repression to choose to kick against. If you're so righteously angry, go channel it into something worthwhile -- like child poverty -- rather than defending your non-existent "right" to talk about politics on someone else's bandwidth.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Stop it you two. Lars, Ed was trying to make a valid point and you repay that with a stupid, unproductive and unnecessarily combative response. Granted it wasn't the most productive way to accomplish his ends but Ed is one of our best, if not the best, community builders and he deserves much more respect
To me this sounded like a police force that starts to kill civilians in order to get more funds to protect the citizens better. It's not the way we build communities around where I live. The point that Ed succeeded to make with me was that he doesn't like Wikipedia and doesn't want to be part of any community. And the better way to make that point would be to simply leave. Maybe I just misunderstood everything. If so, I still haven't understood what's going on here.
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 15:20, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Lars wrote:
Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make an investigation into who really sent that message.
SJC wrote:
It's much easier just to delete the pages you don't like or which don't suit your agenda, though, isn't it Magnus?
Steve Callaway
Stop it you two. Lars, Ed was trying to make a valid point and you repay that with a stupid, unproductive and unnecessarily combative response. Granted it wasn't the most productive way to accomplish his ends but Ed is one of our best, if not the best, community builders and he deserves much more respect than that. Your, comment, on the other hand, only tends to tear down community.
Mav, lashing out at Lars is not appropriate. Ed Poor's whole F.A. charade could quite reasonably be considered stupid and unproductive--or worse. Even if you don't think so, you should certainly not attack people for stating so.
Ed may be good a building community but he's also very capable of doing stupid and silly things. He deserves respect for the good he does, but disapprobation for the stupid things he does. And I suspect Ed would be the first to agree. Judge not the man, but his actions.
Lars may have gone too far in saying that Ed should leave, but it's not entirely irrational.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org