I think this is similar to what happens sometimes at pedophilia-related
articles. For the most part, we as Wikipedians are drawn to edit articles
in which we have a personal interest or stake. Naturally, then, those who
disagree with age of consent laws will be drawn to articles such as
[[NAMBLA]]. Not only do most other Wikipedians not feel drawn there, they
in fact would rather purposefully avoid them because they make them feel
icky. (I can certainly attest to that personally.) But in that manner, I
have found that sometimes the "consensus" on these types of articles gets
skewed. And this makes issues raised on the talk page very difficult to
resolve.
k
On 4/5/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
Thanks Steve, and I want to make super clear that I think people can in
good faith have quite varied opinions on different matters.
What I wanted to point out is that we need to be especially vigilent
when we have an area where we know there are POV pushers and trolls who
are active. As Erik pointed out, in a lot of cases like this, a tiny
turnout at IfD will mean that community consensus is not well reflected,
because the POV pushers will show up in force to override the small
number of good editors who come by.
Imagine this case:
100 good editors, 80 voting delete, 20 voting in good faith to keep
4 pov pushers
4 trolls
End result: 80 - 28, consensus to delete
versus
10 good editors, 8 voting delete, 2 voting in good faith to keep
4 pov pushers
4 trolls
End result: 8 - 10, no conclusion, image kept
Steve Block wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/4/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
>> I think the best way to understand 'what justification' is to
understand
a certain sort of POV pushing... one of the goals of
pedophiles is to
make the case that such materials are perfectly normal and healthy and
should be viewed as being completely routine. One way to achieve that
goal is to be sure that such materials are published widely.
Hi Jimbo,
A couple of people have taken exception to your references to
paedophiles in this debate, and I'd like to join them. Is there any
evidence that actual paedophiles were arguing for the inclusion of
that image? Or is it just, as you acknowledge, anti-censorship people
getting caught up in the argument and crossing the bounds of good
taste?
Conflating anti-censorship, anti-prude, anti-common sense, or simply
trollish people with paedophiles is unfair at best, and inflammatory
and offensive at worst, isn't it?
Look, I for one initially argued keep at IFD, and I don't feel insulted
so much as embarrassed that I allowed myself to be blind-sided in such a
way, and I think Jimbo's spot on in what he says, and I'm a bit
disturbed that a lot of people who weren't involved in this are knocking
Jimbo on this point, superficially on my behalf. I don't want people to
knock Jimbo on my behalf, I think Sam made the right call, so did Jimbo
and I think anyone who can't see that is either as blind sided as I was
or just looking for another big stick to hit Jimbo with.
I'd like to apologise once again for getting the wrong end of the stick
on this issue, and I would like to see people extend the good faith that
everyone involved has extended me by not calling me a complete plonker,
which would be well deserved, and extend that good faith to Jimbo, who
has already qualified his statement once. Jimbo's thrust, as I read it,
was that we shouldn't allow the gaming of the system by those who wish
to promote pedophilia, and that those of us for whom censorship and fair
use is a hot button topic should be aware that we can be manipulated,
and remember the goal is building an encyclopedia, not fighting
censorship or justifying the inclusion of any particular image.
People who's hot button is mistrusting authority should also remember
the goal is building an encyclopedia, not fighting censorship or
justifying the inclusion of any particular image.
I'm sorry if people feel my words are too strong, but there it is. I
was made to look a fool, and no-one likes that. But I'm not too proud
to admit it and I don't see why I should be walking away scott free when
Jimbo is getting a hard time.
Now, can I take this hair shirt off, it damn well itches.
Steve Block
Steve Block
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
#
http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l