[Wikipedia-l] Autofellatio

[Gregory Maxwell]

[snip]
> Lastly, whatever the decision is, keeping the image or
> not keeping the image, this image has NOTHING to do on
> a user talk page.

Which is why I had carefully selected which part of your text I was
replying to...  I think the redirect problem can be solved and I
wasn't trying to discuss it further,  I think vandalism stinks thought
the existing methods work pretty well and new protections will come
overtime.... I wasn't trying to address the vandalism issue.

My concern was that you appear to be supporting the idea that due to
differences in cultural norms it is acceptable to censor content on
some wikipedias and not others.  If I have misunderstood you I
apologise.

It is my strongly held position that if you wish to censor, then you
are not in agreement with the ideals of the overall project and you
would be better off with your own fork.

> Who is "you" ???

Whomever you speak for that has decided that whatever language you are
editing needs a differing policy with respect to neutrality and
censorship than the more heavily trafficed wikipedias.
 
> May I suggest that the english wikipedia is NOT the
> Foundation. And that if I recognise the rights of the
> english wikipedia to decide itself what is good taste
> from what is bad taste, I do not recognise its right
> to decide alone what is censorship and what is not
> censorship. And I do not recognise its right to decide
> what should be on all the other projects from what
> should be absolutely.

Is there not a consensus that denying, by policy, the inclusion of
useful, informative, and encyclopedic information is censorship?

Of course everyone has a right to decide what you will add... but if
you wish to procedurally remove informative contributions because of
some non-neutral position, than you would be better off involved with
another project that includes such a non-neutral slant as part of its
charter.

> Asking that porn pictures be not displayed largely on
> user talk page is frankly not a question of
> censorship, it is a question of civility.

It's a question of vandalism, which is an issue I was specifically
trying not to address. Vandalism is bad, no argument.

> And when editors are complaining of large vandalism
> displaying porn pictures on their talk page, I think
> it would be good manner to recognise there is a
> problem and find a solution to it.

Agreed.

However, your proposals included censoring wikipedia. Not only would
this not solve your problem (bad guy just uploads the image under a
new name and you're even more shocked, because you cant just click the
firefox adfilter plugin option to block it forever if they keep
changing the name), but it is not an acceptable means for preventing
vandalism because it compromises the core goals of the project.
 
> I admire your ability to discuss an issue. I report 3
> different wikipedias complaints about large scale
> vandalisme, and your answer is "fork".

I admire your ability to discuss an issue. Three different wikipedias
have a problem with a class of vandalism which can be reduced by 
simple technical/procedural means (soft redirects + three mouse
clicks), and your answer is to censor.
 
> There is currently strong support for deleting this
> image.

Throughout history there has been strong support for a lot of things
that we view in hindsight as very wrong. Neutrality is a core value of
these projects. By supporting this venture you are attempting to
impose your values on others, it's not neutral.   If we abandon this
goal in the favor of a few practical gains we abandon much of what
makes the project special.
  
> > Wiki vandalism is unfortunate, but it is not a
> > sufficient cause to
> > reduce the available knowledge and the free exchange
> > of information to
> > mankind. It is not an excuse for censorship.
> 
> I do not think a talk page being replaced by
> pornographic pictures will reduce world knowledge. And
> I do not think a man sucking is cock being limited on
> one article only rather than thousand of pages will be
> a bad blow in free exchange of information.

Why do you now limit your remedies to talk pages?
In your initial message you proposed censoring the images available
for use in all wikipedias to be the least common denominator.   It
would hurt knowledge, and it wouldn't help your goal.   I'd attach a
copy of the image to this email to demonstrate how censoring wikipedia
doesn't protect you from unwanted content.... If you're that
concerned, you can browse with images off. (or use the firefox adblock
plugin to filter it with two mouse clicks).

 
> However, I do think that such reactions to other
> people opinions is a bad blow in wikilove that we
> should all try to respect.

I respect peoples feelings, but feelings are more transitory than
freedom and feelings are less universal than knowledge.  If the
project goals were amended to say that it is the primary objective to
make people feel good, then I would not be making the same argument
now.