On 11 May 2010 16:44, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are other resources which address these subject areas in a
> manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as
> conservapedia.
Actually, Conservapedia has almost no readers or editors. (Its
activity rate is marginally higher than Citizendium.) Even the
American Christian right-wing conservatives have no use for it.
> I'd like to address an idea that underlies a lot of this discussion
> which I think is patently ridiculous: That our inability to please
> _everyone_ on _all_ articles is actually something to worry about.
> It's not something that can actually be done, all we can hope to
> choose is decide who we'll please, and by our core principles it
> appears that we've chosen to error towards the libertarians. In terms
> of overall popularity we would have better off not to, but then again
> I doubt we could have built something so useful another way. There is
> no existence proof yet, at least.
By the way, there appears to be an assumption - on the part of board
members, the WMF and some contributors to this thread - that Commons
has been somehow indiscriminate in what it accepts. This is *entirely
false*. Else this wonderful template would not exist:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Nopenis
See every other teplate starting "no" in
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Message_templates .
(And yes, someone already did a version of the icon for [[m:DICK]].)
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
