--- Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Internal Radio Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:54:44 +0100 (BST)
--- Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
Wouter wrote:
Suppose, by comparision, that I suggested for fun that orthodox
Muslims
were
right in saying homosexuals should be executioned. I don't think
that
would
make you smile; in your position, I would ask for immediate removal
of
the
offender from the mailing list and permanent blocking on Wikipedia.
Why on earth should such a person be blocked?
-- Matt
Because I would take it serious and don't want people with this and
similar
views to edit Wikipedia.
Why shouldn't people with such views edit Wikipedia? What about NPOV (Neutral Point of View)?
NPOV has its limits, Matt. Such persons would probably start modfiing pages like [[Homosexuality]], [[Sexuality]], [[Osama bin Laden]], [[George Bush]] etc etc, just because extremists cannot distinguish fact and opinion. Of course, they cannot be removed after a lot of such violations.
We should welcome extremists modifying such pages, as long as they follow our policies (like NPOV). I don't see how we should exclude editors because of what they think. We can exclude them if they edit in violation of our policies, of course. But remember that it is quite possible for editors to hold extreme views, even views that you may find obnoxious, and yet still be a moderate and valuable Wikipedia contributor.
-- Matt
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
From: Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Internal Radio Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:03:09 +0100 (BST)
--- Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Internal Radio Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:54:44 +0100 (BST)
--- Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
Wouter wrote:
Suppose, by comparision, that I suggested for fun that orthodox
Muslims
were
right in saying homosexuals should be executioned. I don't think
that
would
make you smile; in your position, I would ask for immediate
removal
of
the
offender from the mailing list and permanent blocking on
Wikipedia.
Why on earth should such a person be blocked?
-- Matt
Because I would take it serious and don't want people with this and
similar
views to edit Wikipedia.
Why shouldn't people with such views edit Wikipedia? What about NPOV (Neutral Point of View)?
NPOV has its limits, Matt. Such persons would probably start modfiing
pages
like [[Homosexuality]], [[Sexuality]], [[Osama bin Laden]], [[George
Bush]]
etc etc, just because extremists cannot distinguish fact and opinion. Of course, they cannot be removed after a lot of such violations.
We should welcome extremists modifying such pages, as long as they follow our policies (like NPOV). I don't see how we should exclude editors because of what they think. We can exclude them if they edit in violation of our policies, of course. But remember that it is quite possible for editors to hold extreme views, even views that you may find obnoxious, and yet still be a moderate and valuable Wikipedia contributor.
I guess you're right. As long as they write according to NPOV, it doesn't matter. Actually my original point was not that people with certain persuations /should/ be blocked, but that a joke like the one I sketched earlier today would make me so angry that I would ask for the person's immediate removal and blocking. This will do.
Wouter
_________________________________________________________________ Gebruik MSN Webmessenger op je werk en op school http://webmessenger.msn.com/
But I hope you will agree that there is a huge difference between a joke about all homosexuals should be executed (I don't even get the joke there... where is it?) and a joke that includes some mild elements which might liken Jimbo to Jim Jong Il.
While I don't personally believe Jimbo can be considered a dictator (and most certainly not a self-obsessed one), I think that there is a sort of personality cult about him, and certainly on IRC I have seen people who seem more interested in him than perhaps I would be comfortable with in Jimbo's position. Of course this isn't "approved by Jimbo" - on the contrary, AFAIK he doesn't like that sort of thing - but I have definitely seen some people who it would only be going a little bit further for them to watch a television broadcast of his birthday, and even I would watch his biography if it were on television.
Mark
On Apr 12, 2005 10:08 AM, Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Internal Radio Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:03:09 +0100 (BST)
--- Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Internal Radio Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:54:44 +0100 (BST)
--- Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
Wouter wrote: > Suppose, by comparision, that I suggested for fun that orthodox
Muslims
were > right in saying homosexuals should be executioned. I don't think
that
would > make you smile; in your position, I would ask for immediate
removal
of
the > offender from the mailing list and permanent blocking on
Wikipedia.
Why on earth should such a person be blocked?
-- Matt
Because I would take it serious and don't want people with this and
similar
views to edit Wikipedia.
Why shouldn't people with such views edit Wikipedia? What about NPOV (Neutral Point of View)?
NPOV has its limits, Matt. Such persons would probably start modfiing
pages
like [[Homosexuality]], [[Sexuality]], [[Osama bin Laden]], [[George
Bush]]
etc etc, just because extremists cannot distinguish fact and opinion. Of course, they cannot be removed after a lot of such violations.
We should welcome extremists modifying such pages, as long as they follow our policies (like NPOV). I don't see how we should exclude editors because of what they think. We can exclude them if they edit in violation of our policies, of course. But remember that it is quite possible for editors to hold extreme views, even views that you may find obnoxious, and yet still be a moderate and valuable Wikipedia contributor.
I guess you're right. As long as they write according to NPOV, it doesn't matter. Actually my original point was not that people with certain persuations /should/ be blocked, but that a joke like the one I sketched earlier today would make me so angry that I would ask for the person's immediate removal and blocking. This will do.
Wouter
Gebruik MSN Webmessenger op je werk en op school http://webmessenger.msn.com/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
But I hope you will agree that there is a huge difference between a joke about all homosexuals should be executed (I don't even get the joke there... where is it?) and a joke that includes some mild elements which might liken Jimbo to Jim Jong Il.
While I don't personally believe Jimbo can be considered a dictator (and most certainly not a self-obsessed one), I think that there is a sort of personality cult about him, and certainly on IRC I have seen people who seem more interested in him than perhaps I would be comfortable with in Jimbo's position. Of course this isn't "approved by Jimbo" - on the contrary, AFAIK he doesn't like that sort of thing
- but I have definitely seen some people who it would only be going a
little bit further for them to watch a television broadcast of his birthday, and even I would watch his biography if it were on television.
Mark
OK, that's enough. Let's quit. I can't get the joke either in the situation I suggested, but I know people that could say things like these for fun (!), and think of contexts in which it is more or less clear that they do so. My point was: Kim Jong Il is a cruel dictator that famishes his people and lives in exorbitant wealth himself. You sould think twice before you compare someone to him, even for fun.
Good to be sure anyway that you have nothing against Jimbo. Finally: We in the Netherlands know how to mock our leaders. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Peter_Balkenende and you'll understand what I mean...
Wouter
_________________________________________________________________ Direct antwoord op je vragen: gebruik MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
Mark Williamson wrote:
But I hope you will agree that there is a huge difference between a joke about all homosexuals should be executed (I don't even get the joke there... where is it?) and a joke that includes some mild elements which might liken Jimbo to Jim Jong Il.
Regrettably irony is not always an effective tool in this crowd. Jim Dong Ill doesn't always carry a big stick when he can't get it up.
While I don't personally believe Jimbo can be considered a dictator (and most certainly not a self-obsessed one), I think that there is a sort of personality cult about him, and certainly on IRC I have seen people who seem more interested in him than perhaps I would be comfortable with in Jimbo's position. Of course this isn't "approved by Jimbo" - on the contrary, AFAIK he doesn't like that sort of thing
- but I have definitely seen some people who it would only be going a
little bit further for them to watch a television broadcast of his birthday, and even I would watch his biography if it were on television.
This kind of hero-worship begins with Christians who find it more chic to parrot Christ's words than to live them. In our context this translates into using "Jimbo said ..." as an argument that would stop all debate. I can understand perfectly when his enterring a discussion would have the effect of stopping the discussion even when that his not his intent.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org