Hi Excirial, I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the questionlist and found the cry "we dont censor" in one of the reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term in your email. Personally i find labeling your opponents view as "censorship " a way of calling names, as one associates your opponents view as something no one wants to be associated with.
Btw, you might want to read my reaction on the questions, I dont think are proposed ideas very far apart. Or did you read my remarks there already and made them part of your ideas? kind regards, Teun Spaans On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Excirial <wp.excir...@gmail.com> wrote: > *You have my sympathy to - no matter what the outcome is, some if not many > people will label it censorship, directly or indirectly. "We dont censor" > has been an standard argument so far in any attempt to > regulate upload of images or discussion of features that some people > obviously want.* > > Come come, be fair here, this is a two-side issue. What you say is > absolutely correct - but the other side of the coin are the editors who have > screamed ""Intentionally offensive!", "Biased!" and "Morality and > responsibility" as a response to any image kept, with equal attempts to hide > the fact that they simply dislike a single image (but cannot say that). Both > sides are to blame for the current situation we have, and the problem is > that it is nearly impossible to compromise on this issue since there is no > middle ground where each side gives in a bit (Its either everything or > nothing). > > I'm strongly supporting the "No censorship" camp, and as of such i am > against any wiki-wide measures that would make content unavailable, with the > argument that people can choose whether or not to look at offensive content, > but people cannot choose to look at content that others deem offensive if it > isn't included. I would, however, strongly support a system that gives users > a choice to censor if they wish. It should be possible to categorize commons > in such a way that certain images can be blocked. For example, a user might > choose to block "images of Muhammad", while allowing surgery related images > (Others might swap there if they wish). > > The advantage would be that each user can decide for himself if he doesn't > want to see something, rather then being forced to change this wiki-wide. It > may be difficult to implement such a system for IP users, but it should be > possible to accomplish. It should solve the issue where people don't want to > see something. Of course we still have the issue where people don't want > others to see certain content, but well - save for removing everything that > group can never be appeased anyway (And same for people who would argue that > even offering the option to filter is inherently bad). > > ~Excirial > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:31 PM, teun spaans <teun.spa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You have my sympathy to - no matter what the outcome is, some if not >> many people will label it censorship, directly or indirectly. "We dont >> censor" has been an standard argument so far in any attempt to >> regulate upload of images or discussion of features that some people >> obviously want. >> >> kind regards >> Teun Spaans >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
