On 23/01/2009, at 9:40 AM, lenz wrote:
the situation here is different, it is a product page and it is
actively
edited by the community. after all it is a public wiki. if someone
thinks
that it is not right, change it, cut out the link part and just
leave the
wording, make a note, delete it and wait for the response of those
entering
the links. it is public opinion.
I think that promotes a battleground mentality. I'll delete any links
that reference or contain religious/violent/neocon/gambling/
hypocritical-anti-drug/pro-life etc material, even if the linked site
isn't *about* that, but merely happens to contain such material.
Someone puts it back, I take it down. That's the consequence of your
proposal.
Before long you have to ban some people from editing, and that is the
equivalent of making a moral judgement. The system I proposed
acknowledges that judgement is required, but shifts the domain from
morals to a technical requirement on the format, and completeness of
the annotation of the entry. And whilst I admit that my proposal is
strongly grounded in a philosophical position, IMO it is also the most
practical because the judgement is as far as possible objective and
non-contentious.
i think that a product promotion page (thats what it is in fact) has
a very
different purpose than a broadly available news site or the way ISPs
deal
with content on their systems. i think if in doubt, delete the link
and wait
for the reaction or change the link into a text only link to not push
traffic to pages that might not reflect the views of the majority of
the
community.
"the views of the majority of the community" sounds a lot like mob
prejudice.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid
starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this
is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.
-- Bertrand Russell
