[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[WereSpielChequers]

Re David's point that "The trouble with responding on the blog is that
responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered". I can relate to that, it
isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with
timestamps long after my post. I don't know whether that was me not knowing
how to do blog replies or something else. But the solution is in our hands,
I've now posted my blog response in
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Your_blog_post where
really it should have gone in the first place.

Regards

WereSpielChequers
------------------------------

>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:56:02 -0700
> From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
>        judgement, and image filters
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <CAAi3vqFkVi6_-8gC-9yrPkECfXaGhzTctt-TRb4AnXkBaHDnKA at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
> >> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. ?Naturally, please
> >> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
> >> conversation about the image filter.
> >
> >
> > The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
> > being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
> >
> > So here's one that's particularly apposite:
> >
> >
> http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html
> >
> > He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
> > manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that
> > "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say
> > any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to
> make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments
> notwithstanding)... I can't speak for Sue, of course, but when I read
> the blog post I see nothing in there that says she is referring to the
> author of this particular article (she refers only to the decision to
> put the article on the mainpage, presumably not something that can be
> traced to a single person).
>
> The quotation you have made stands as a separate point, and is
> unrelated to the discussion of the de main page above. She simply
> says: "Those community members who are acting like provocateurs and
> agitators need to stop." -- not identifying particular people, or even
> particular topics. When I read this, what comes to *my* mind is some
> of the recent dialog on Foundation-l -- some of which was certainly
> intentionally provocative, and some of which did get very personal and
> personally hurtful, to myself and others.
>
> Sue's post is *not about the image filter*. It's about the dialog
> around the image filter, some of which has been great and some of
> which has sucked. It is, indeed, hard to talk to people when they
> attack you for it. But I don't think there was any attacking in Sue's
> post.
>
> -- phoebe
>
>
>
>