|
Agradeço os e-mail, mas, não entendo inglês. Por favor não mandem mais estas mensagens, a não ser em português.
Thank you for e-mail, but, I not espeack inglish. Stop.
--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Nicholas Kaye-Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:02:04 +1000
Subject: Re: [Campaigns-l] Formal statement for press release--do not silence an opposing political viewpoint by imposing your own "unity" on me
> The way I see things:
>
> Campaigns Wikia (campaigns.wikia.com) - Summary of various issues/viewpoints and where the candidates stand.
> Forums ( campaigns.formationos.net) - Discussion of various issues, like what is happening on this list. Seriously, sign up for an account. Ask myself or Chad to create any categories.
> Mailing list ( [email protected]) - Discussion of the running of campaigns wikia.
>
> Nicholas
>
>
> On 10/25/06, Chad Lupkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rev. King,
>
> Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Even facts are debatable most of
> the time. 99% of what people say is based on their perspective, their
> point of view, and facts can be twisted without sacrificing truth by
> the clever use of frames. I don't want to deny anyone their POV. I'm
> not trying to reach "secular objectivity", because I understand it to
> be a false concept and I reject it outright.
>
> So, here's a scenario. Someone posts something on a page like a
> category that is controversial. It gets removed by someone who
> objects to it. It gets restored, removed, restored, etc. until people
> get so frustrated that they resort to vandalism just as a means of
> lashing out. How should we handle this?
>
> I'll tell you how we handled it. I asked the staff for advice, and
> was reminded of the Three revert rule on Wikipedia. So we applied it,
> and had a discussion and a vote. I argued during the debate for the
> vote that we should [[Allow Points of View]] and leave the category on
> the page. I also suggested that a balancing category be placed on the
> page, or at least [[Category:Controversial]]. The answer I got back
> from the person who removed the category was basically this: under no
> circumstances would he allow that category to be placed on that page,
> even if it meant he would be banned from the site. One of his
> counter-proposals was actually to add dozens of caustic categories to
> yet another page, saying that we should Allow Points of View and that
> such additions could not be removed. Is that person worth working
> with to keep them engaged? We all say yes, but we also want
> behavioral compromises from him as well.
>
> So let me use a metaphor here. In the United States, yelling "FIRE!"
> in a theatre is not protected free speech, and can be punished by a
> court of law especially if someone is hurt in the stampede to get out
> of the theatre. But whether or not the law is engaged, yelling
> anything in a theatre is a bad idea, and the owners of the theatre
> have the right to remove the person who is yelling from their place of
> business, by physical means if necessary. Whether that person was
> yelling in support of the Iraq War or in opposition to it makes no
> difference. What view is being expressed means nothing to the fact
> that he/she is annoying the heck out of everyone and nobody wants to
> deal with the shouting.
>
> To continue with the metaphor, who decides what movies will be made?
> The people with an interest in making the movie and the people who
> finance the filiming. Who decides what movies will be shown on the
> screens? Who decides whether movies from Christian, Islamic or Jewish
> movies will be shown? The owners of the movie theatre, depending on
> how many screens they have and how many people they think might be
> interested in paying to watch the movies. This is where the wiki
> breaks from this metaphor. We don't live on movie screens. Movies,
> commercial radio, commercial television, newspapers and all the other
> types of broadcast media that we are dealing with in this country and
> around the world limit us to seeing what the people who have money
> want to allow us to see.
>
> Campaigns.Wikia was established to be an alternative to that. The
> Internet is an open system, where people are able to post their views
> without any cost to themselves. And the Internet is open where it
> costs very little if anything to view the pages. We are perfectly
> positioned with the MediaWiki technology and the success of Wikipedia
> to make Campaigns Wikia a primary pivot point for the expansion of the
> information age and the transformation of politics in our world.
>
> We want to have a thoughtful, meaningful dialoge among political
> equals about the subjects that affect us all. We are all equals, and
> the place that we have set up to have that debate is the Wiki. Again,
> objectivity is not the goal, because it doesn't exist in reality, only
> in academia. We're looking for well reasoned debate where we can see
> what all the candidates really think about the issues and be able to
> intelligently choose which one reflects our values and will be most
> likely and capable of putting our ideas into law. Or if nobody is
> worthy of our support, we need a way to get out our own views and
> perhaps run for office ourselves.
>
> The "Social Contract" that you're asking for was approved last month
> by those people active and voting in the policy debates. Allow Points
> of View (APOV) is a version of of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) that
> says that points of view are welcome and shouldn't be deleted if we
> disagree with them, but instead should be countered with alternative
> viewpoints.
>
> Specific policies about the format of pages would in my mind
> discourage people from engaging in discussion. Pages on the wiki will
> be built by those members of the community that decide to get
> involved. We can certainly tag well-designed pages as potential
> models, and we can create a category or other means for people to help
> build the pages that need to be expanded and cleaned up, I don't think
> we should limit contributions to a specific and limited article
> design.
>
> And thank you for speaking about the need for a non-caustic form of
> debate. I agree that is a key point that we need to keep in mind when
> posting in a public forum. We should avoid doing so, and we should
> also be willing to forgive people who get out of control. Bring such
> discussions off the list, onto the talk pages or into other forums so
> we can work out our differences and come back to the table ready to
> help build participatory politics in order to rebuild our world into
> one that works for all of us.
>
> Chad Lupkes
> Seattle
>
> On 10/24/06, CH Rob J King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Secular French post-modern philosopher Michel Foucault, not a religious
> > believer and even a practicing homosexual, nonetheless questioned rigorously
> > the supposed "objectivity" upon which modern Western Liberal societies are
> > now built.
> > In my brief foray into the Wikia campaigns, I was saddened at the attempts
> > by many to impose an apparent "objectivity" (by force if necessary) over an
> > over-lapping set of complex political viewpoints arising from an equally
> > complex set of underlying and over-arching worldviews.
> > What constitutes "normativity"? As Foucault questioned regarding sexuality,
> > is heterosexuality normative, and if so why? Is homosexuality normative,
> > especially if the ancient Greek philosophers seemed to welcome it? Whose
> > reigning sets of institutions, social and more importantly academic, will
> > define what is normative? What happens with groups, like Muslems and Jews
> > living in France in 2006, who, for the sake of a secular normativity, are
> > denied of religious liberties such as not being allowed to wear religious
> > headware in public? Is the secular view normative? Is the Jewish view? Is
> > the Islamic view? Who decides?
> > Here is the problem that Wikia Campaigns will now confront. Any public
> > forum wishing to remain credible will not seek to silence or eliminate
> > voices that the forum's moderators happen to be in disagreement with.
> > Granted, Wikia Campaigns will seek to be objective, but in seeking
> > objectivity, as Foucault would rightly question, whose sets of knowledges,
> > whose protocol, and by whose authority would one define such objectivity?
> > Simply claiming academic or professional standing, although a move with
> > obvious merit (i.e. it is more difficult to obtain entrance into schools
> > such as Harvard, Duke, etc.), nonetheless does not solve the issue.
> > Pro-abortionists have ethicists teaching at Princeton. Pro-lifers have
> > ethicists also teaching at Princeton. Which Ivy League ethicist are we
> > supposed to view as authoritative?
> > Because of the incommensurability (to use moral philosopher Alasdair
> > MacIntyre's terminology) of current Western European, N. American and the
> > elite world moral debates (e.g. pro-life vs. pro-abortion), in order that no
> > perspective be silenced, a quick and easy antidote is for Wikia Campaigns to
> > adopt a type of "Social Contract" ( e.g. as described by Rousseau) so that
> > every participant in Wikia Campaigns will agree to a mutually binding,
> > mutually determined set of normative rules, policies and procedures. One
> > example could be rules and standards that would govern the giving of
> > academic lectures--i.e. a formal statement followed by short, pre-determined
> > lengths of responses, without editting for content or even tone (e.g. many
> > academic debates can become quite heated, even in the elite academic
> > institutions of the United States such as Duke or Notre Dame). The
> > pre-determined length will allow short, well-written, non-caustic responses,
> > in short, similar to a televised political debate.
> > Only through adopting a mutually-binding, mutually-determined social
> > contractarian form of on-line communication can the attempts at "knowledge
> > control," as described by Foucault and others, be avoided.
> > Sincerely,
> > Rob J. King, M.Div., Th.M., Ph.D. (ABD*), Professor of Bible and Christian
> > Ministry, Grand Canyon University-Online
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
------- End of Original Message -------
|
