Re David's point that "The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered". I can relate to that, it isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with timestamps long after my post. I don't know whether that was me not knowing how to do blog replies or something else. But the solution is in our hands, I've now posted my blog response in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Your_blog_post where really it should have gone in the first place.
Regards WereSpielChequers ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:56:02 -0700 > From: phoebe ayers <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial > judgement, and image filters > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <caai3vqfkvi6_-8gc-9yrpkecfxaghztctt-trb4anxkbahd...@mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ > >> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. ?Naturally, please > >> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to > >> conversation about the image filter. > > > > > > The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be > > being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine. > > > > So here's one that's particularly apposite: > > > > > http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html > > > > He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all > > manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that > > "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say > > any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE. > > > > > > - d. > > For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to > make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments > notwithstanding)... I can't speak for Sue, of course, but when I read > the blog post I see nothing in there that says she is referring to the > author of this particular article (she refers only to the decision to > put the article on the mainpage, presumably not something that can be > traced to a single person). > > The quotation you have made stands as a separate point, and is > unrelated to the discussion of the de main page above. She simply > says: "Those community members who are acting like provocateurs and > agitators need to stop." -- not identifying particular people, or even > particular topics. When I read this, what comes to *my* mind is some > of the recent dialog on Foundation-l -- some of which was certainly > intentionally provocative, and some of which did get very personal and > personally hurtful, to myself and others. > > Sue's post is *not about the image filter*. It's about the dialog > around the image filter, some of which has been great and some of > which has sucked. It is, indeed, hard to talk to people when they > attack you for it. But I don't think there was any attacking in Sue's > post. > > -- phoebe > > > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
