[Foundation-l] Conflict resolution on meta Wikimedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

David Gerard wrote:

>Christiaan Briggs christiaan at last-straw.net:
>:On 24 Feb 2005, at 6:49 pm, Rowan Collins wrote:
>:> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:07:57 +1100, David Gerard
>:> <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>:>> What Gerard actually did with the above edit was take this paragraph:
>
>:> This is just a non-permanent diff links problem :) The edit in
>:> question was unquestionably vandalism.
>:> The edit you're looking at it is me trying to be helpful; the one
>:> Christiaan posted (or meant to) was a revert of blanking the whole
>:> page.
>
>:Oh, thanks, I thought I was going nuts for a second there!
>
>
>You're right - looking at the history, that would be disrupting to make a
>point.  This is probably not a helpful thing to do in a hot debate.
>
>Is the present version sufficient for you? It's pretty much OK by me.
>GerardM?
>
>
>- d.
>
Hoi,
First of all, The current version is not sufficient. It does not address 
any of the concerns that I have about this thing. My point has been 
consistently been reverted and if it wasn't such an important issue I 
would have found it a rediculous issue. All the comments that I had 
added have been moved away and it now gives the impression that it is a 
squaky clean suggestion and that it is not controversial at all.

Secondly, you state that it was vandalism. Fine, then what label does 
the manner that my contributions were treated with deserve ?

This whole proposal is about introducing censorship into the wikimedia 
projects and it should be introduced into the Mediawiki software itself. 
Images are only to be used after carefull consideration. Default 
settings have to be found to prevent the public from seeing "offensive" 
material. What offensive material is, is not specified. It is denied 
that it has anything to do with censorship. The arguments about this are 
hiden in a discussion that was held on the en:wikipedia mailing list. 
All stuff that is in opposition to this proposal is moved away to a 
place that does not even discuss why this idea would be proper. Now you 
ask me if the current version is sufficient ?

On a different subject. Angela has rightfully complained that this 
subject is not what the Foundation mailing list is for. This is the 
reason why I have stopped responding on this list. But as it has not 
stopped and I have been asked a direct question

Thanks,
    No thanks !
       Gerard