[Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Sat Jul 23 17:48:37 UTC 2011

Don't think Austin has anything to do with this. While its strange
that a mail is gone.

But a list moderator nor administrator cant delete mails from the archive.

2011/7/23, Mike  Dupont <jamesmikedupont op googlemail.com>:
> It looks like my message here was truncated from the mailing list archive,
> so I am reposting it.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061709.html
>
> Mr Kohs pointed this out here :
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34460
> thanks,
> mike
> --------------- Original Text ----------------------------------
>
> Hello,
>
> From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
> interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
> conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
>
> People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
> do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
> because it is uncomfortable.
>
> Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
> interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
> people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
> fair to the people involved.
>
> Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
> well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
> list.
>
> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
>
> Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
> that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.
>
> The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
> accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
> credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
> any merit in what they say.
>
> This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed
> ones.
>
> Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
> Spam etc, lets call that evil content.
>
> But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
> did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
> notable.
>
> We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
> deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
> content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.
>
> Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
> Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
> and gone forever without proper process or review.
>
> In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
> of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
> from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.
>
> Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
> Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
> television show, is that what you really want?
>
> I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
> notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
> need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
> mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
> like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
> Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
> if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
> people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
> the project of important information because they are not able to get
> started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
> political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
> chance to be heard.
>
> We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
> conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.
>
> thanks,
> mike
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Mike Dupont <jamesmikedupont op googlemail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
>> interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
>> conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
>>
>> People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
>> do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
>> because it is uncomfortable.
>>
>> Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
>> interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
>> people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
>> fair to the people involved.
>>
>> Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
>> well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
>> list.
>>
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
>>
>> Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
>> that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.
>>
>> The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
>> accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
>> credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
>> any merit in what they say.
>>
>> This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed
>> ones.
>>
>> Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
>> Spam etc, lets call that evil content.
>>
>> But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
>> did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
>> notable.
>>
>> We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
>> deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
>> content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.
>>
>> Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
>> Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
>> and gone forever without proper process or review.
>>
>> In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
>> of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
>> from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.
>>
>> Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
>> Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
>> television show, is that what you really want?
>>
>> I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
>> notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
>> need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
>> mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
>> like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
>> Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
>> if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
>> people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
>> the project of important information because they are not able to get
>> started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
>> political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
>> chance to be heard.
>>
>> We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
>> conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.
>>
>> thanks,
>> mike
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Michael DuPont
> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
Verzonden vanaf mijn mobiele apparaat

Kind regards,

Huib Laurens
WickedWay.nl

Webhosting the wicked way.