Don't think Austin has anything to do with this. While its strange that a mail is gone.
But a list moderator nor administrator cant delete mails from the archive. 2011/7/23, Mike Dupont <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com>: > It looks like my message here was truncated from the mailing list archive, > so I am reposting it. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061709.html > > Mr Kohs pointed this out here : > http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34460 > thanks, > mike > --------------- Original Text ---------------------------------- > > Hello, > > From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some > interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to > conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint. > > People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to > do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away > because it is uncomfortable. > > Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these > interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many > people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not > fair to the people involved. > > Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and > well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the > list. > > http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts > > Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable, > that does make you look balanced and trustworthy. > > The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such > accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more > credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is > any merit in what they say. > > This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed > ones. > > Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful, > Spam etc, lets call that evil content. > > But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted > did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not > notable. > > We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being > deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad > content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content. > > Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the > Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted > and gone forever without proper process or review. > > In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning > of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people > from information that they want and need in an unfair manner. > > Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in > Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every > television show, is that what you really want? > > I think there should be room for things in places that are not not > notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also > need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not > mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like > like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the > Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even > if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of > people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving > the project of important information because they are not able to get > started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating > political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a > chance to be heard. > > We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the > conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust. > > thanks, > mike > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Mike Dupont <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com >> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some >> interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to >> conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint. >> >> People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to >> do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away >> because it is uncomfortable. >> >> Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these >> interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many >> people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not >> fair to the people involved. >> >> Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and >> well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the >> list. >> >> >> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts >> >> Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable, >> that does make you look balanced and trustworthy. >> >> The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such >> accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more >> credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is >> any merit in what they say. >> >> This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed >> ones. >> >> Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful, >> Spam etc, lets call that evil content. >> >> But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted >> did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not >> notable. >> >> We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being >> deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad >> content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content. >> >> Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the >> Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted >> and gone forever without proper process or review. >> >> In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning >> of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people >> from information that they want and need in an unfair manner. >> >> Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in >> Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every >> television show, is that what you really want? >> >> I think there should be room for things in places that are not not >> notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also >> need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not >> mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like >> like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the >> Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even >> if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of >> people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving >> the project of important information because they are not able to get >> started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating >> political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a >> chance to be heard. >> >> We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the >> conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust. >> >> thanks, >> mike >> > > > > -- > James Michael DuPont > Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Verzonden vanaf mijn mobiele apparaat Kind regards, Huib Laurens WickedWay.nl Webhosting the wicked way. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l