On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:23:32 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Is every editorial disagreement a test of "moral rightness"? I really don't see it that way. Maybe the communication difficulty we are having surrounds your use of that phrase?
No, it's only a test of moral rightness if that is the basis behind an editors decisions.. We can't always tell from the outside, but we can ask. If there is no justification from the large set that we consider valid reasons for changes to the article that can be discussed, then we must assume that the reasoning is based on good/evil judgements.
From below it seems we're pretty much in agreement on this stuff now.
Yes, of course. That appears to be not at risk here at all. I haven't seen anyone say that it's ok to make these decisions based on "imposing" a "point of view", nor to say that such decisions need have no articulable basis.
When it was discussed at the begining of the thread why we must have better bounds betwen languages the reasoning given was that what is offensive in one culture can be offensive in another.
Am I missing something by assuming that "offensive" implies that someone is imposing a point of view?
If there is another image that can be substuted which provides the same information, then we can make the substutition based on keeping the article focused. If the image is not topical, we can remove it because it is non-topical. I don't believe "offensive" is ever useful as a valid reason to exclude content.
Lets talk about that stupid autofellatio image... I'd been wanting to avoid it, because I think the concepts here are more interesting than the practice, but I think it might actually turn out to be a reasonable example.
I had pointed out to Anthere elsewhere in the thread that the image conveys knowledge that can not easily be brought out through other means: An image shows you that such an act is actually possible. A drawing doesn't carry the same value. She agreed that in principal, I might have a good point... and perhaps we should replace the image with a similar one which improves upon it in a number of ways (that I never considered because I don't find it objectionable). It seems that there may be a possible solution that improves the situation without excluding a photograph of a man with his penis in his mouth from the encyclopedia.
This would remove my concerns about censorship and imposing points of view... but I strongly doubt it would satisfy even a small percentage of those that have complained so strongly.
Yes, I don't think anyone really disagrees with any of this.
At the same time, I don't think anyone would support banning people who vote based on "nudity is bad". It's too big a risk of trouble on _other_ grounds if we start declaring that people may not vote or discuss unless they give right reasons. :-)
Well it should be a part of the dispute process... if you can't support why your position doesn't create NPOV in a matter where it is accused that your edit creates NPOV, then you should lose the dispute and be asked not to make those edits.
If someone is unable to follow such a decision, what choice do we have but to ban? At that point the editor has become a vandal.
work, a standard unlikely to be met for the matters we are discussing... at least in the case where the contributor is honestly trying to enhance the value of the encyclopedia, rather than a troll.
Yes, of course.
But the point is, the decision taken in the end might differ across different wikipedias for reasons of culture, or perhaps even for reasons very very local to that editing community's history. We need not impose uniformity everywhere.
Uniformity of outcome or uniformity of procedure and requirements?
There might be differing outcomes, but I think we should uniformly reject actions based only on pushing a POV.
To get to this goal we must hold all languages to the same standard of neutrality, and make sure that the idea of neutrality is well explained in every language. For this we have be currently left largely at the mercy of those who are interested in each of the languages... but the basic rules are a project matter, not a language matter. It would make sense to ask participants in every culture and language to occasionally check on all the others to keep everyone honest with respect to the basic rules.
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxwell@gmail.com) [050331 07:10]:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:23:32 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Is every editorial disagreement a test of "moral rightness"? I really don't see it that way. Maybe the communication difficulty we are having surrounds your use of that phrase?
No, it's only a test of moral rightness if that is the basis behind an editors decisions.. We can't always tell from the outside, but we can ask. If there is no justification from the large set that we consider valid reasons for changes to the article that can be discussed, then we must assume that the reasoning is based on good/evil judgements.
Indeed. I really, really doubt that all the people claiming the autofellatio pic MUST be a copyright violation therefore MUST be deleted NOW would get away with that level of copyright paranoia about *anything* else on Wikipedia, and oddly enough I suspect them of other motivations. Particularly since, as I understand it, despite much searching no-one has actually found anything it's actually a copy of.
- d.
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:27:38 +1000, David Gerard
Indeed. I really, really doubt that all the people claiming the autofellatio pic MUST be a copyright violation therefore MUST be deleted NOW would get away with that level of copyright paranoia about *anything* else on Wikipedia, and oddly enough I suspect them of other motivations. Particularly since, as I understand it, despite much searching no-one has actually found anything it's actually a copy of.
Yea, I already tried pushing copyright paranoia. No one buys it. ;)
Since were now all claiming that it isn't a censorship or neutrality thing, I think I will endeavor to make a replacement photograph to test this theory.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:40:25 -0500, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:27:38 +1000, David Gerard
Indeed. I really, really doubt that all the people claiming the autofellatio pic MUST be a copyright violation therefore MUST be deleted NOW would get away with that level of copyright paranoia about *anything* else on Wikipedia, and oddly enough I suspect them of other motivations. Particularly since, as I understand it, despite much searching no-one has actually found anything it's actually a copy of.
Yea, I already tried pushing copyright paranoia. No one buys it. ;)
Since were now all claiming that it isn't a censorship or neutrality thing, I think I will endeavor to make a replacement photograph to test this theory.
Oh, never mind! I see that there is already a free one!
Thank you mr. anonymous penis sucker.
David Gerard wrote:
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxwell@gmail.com) [050331 07:10]:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:23:32 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Is every editorial disagreement a test of "moral rightness"? I really don't see it that way. Maybe the communication difficulty we are having surrounds your use of that phrase?
No, it's only a test of moral rightness if that is the basis behind an editors decisions.. We can't always tell from the outside, but we can ask. If there is no justification from the large set that we consider valid reasons for changes to the article that can be discussed, then we must assume that the reasoning is based on good/evil judgements.
Indeed. I really, really doubt that all the people claiming the autofellatio pic MUST be a copyright violation therefore MUST be deleted NOW would get away with that level of copyright paranoia about *anything* else on Wikipedia, and oddly enough I suspect them of other motivations. Particularly since, as I understand it, despite much searching no-one has actually found anything it's actually a copy of.
Assuming that there is a proper owner, I wonder how the courts would view an action over copyright infringement for use of that picture.
Ec
They'd have to stop laughing first.
Mark
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:48:37 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxwell@gmail.com) [050331 07:10]:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:23:32 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Is every editorial disagreement a test of "moral rightness"? I really don't see it that way. Maybe the communication difficulty we are having surrounds your use of that phrase?
No, it's only a test of moral rightness if that is the basis behind an editors decisions.. We can't always tell from the outside, but we can ask. If there is no justification from the large set that we consider valid reasons for changes to the article that can be discussed, then we must assume that the reasoning is based on good/evil judgements.
Indeed. I really, really doubt that all the people claiming the autofellatio pic MUST be a copyright violation therefore MUST be deleted NOW would get away with that level of copyright paranoia about *anything* else on Wikipedia, and oddly enough I suspect them of other motivations. Particularly since, as I understand it, despite much searching no-one has actually found anything it's actually a copy of.
Assuming that there is a proper owner, I wonder how the courts would view an action over copyright infringement for use of that picture.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org