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

[Risker]

On 30 September 2011 10:36, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >
> >
> >> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
> >> (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
> >> (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
> about
> > in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
> to
> > others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
> seeing
> > the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from
> the
> > US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman
> from
> > the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the
> > discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
> > posts in the future.
> >
> > Risker
> > _______________________________________________
>
>
> I think you're reading too much into this - he was replying to two
> other posts on the subject purely by adding information. The question
> of "what do women think about the image filter? What about women in
> different regions?" is of some relevance - it's useful to try to
> understand both the ways in which men and women see this issue
> differently, and the impact of cultural origins on views. Not sure why
> he said "tactically" re Sarah, but he probably has a reason, and I
> think Millosh is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
>
>

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog
post was about two basic issues:

*How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and

*The role of editorial judgment in selecting which content is most
educational, informative, appropriate and (in the case of images) aesthetic
in the content that the various projects present to the world at large in
our shared, collaborative quest to provide useful and educational
information and media to the entire world.

There has been a fair amount of nastiness aimed at specific individuals and
belittling of the opinions of others throughout this discussion. Just as
importantly, there has been a fair amount of unjustified categorization of,
and assumptions about, people's opinions (both pro and con) on the issue of
an image filter. We all are aware that this sort of behaviour detracts from
effective resolution of disputes. Xenophobia, sexism, and elitism do not
help us to meet our collective goals, nor does an insistence
on the discussion encompassing only very narrow parameters.

As to editorial judgment, we all know that just about every edit made to any
of our projects requires some degree of judgment. Even editors who focus
exclusively on vandal control have to exercise such judgment to ensure that
they do not reinsert inappropriate information when reverting an apparent
vandal. Projects have countless policies and guidelines that direct editors
in their selection of material to be included, and under what circumstances.
Article improvement processes on each Wikipedia are geared toward assisting
editors to select the best and most subject-appropriate content, to present
it in a well-written and visually attractive way, and to ensure that key
information on the topic is included, while trivia is limited or
eliminated.

"Wikipedia is not censored" is not a reason to include or exclude
information within a specific article: it is the philosophy that makes it
clear that Wikipedia provides educational and informative articles on
subjects whether or not that subject may be censored by external forces.
That is why we have articles about the Tiananmen Square protests, and the
Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi and frottage and vulva and Mohammed.  Our
job is to present the information, regardless of whether these articles
could be censored somewhere in the world. How we present that information,
however, is a matter of editorial judgment.

Risker