On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking > > about > > > in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating > > to > > > others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly > > seeing > > > the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or > from > > the > > > US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman > > from > > > the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the > > > discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making > such > > > posts in the future. > > > > As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think > > about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how > > does it correlate with cultures. > > > > I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter, nor > all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to generalize > on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple > correlation. > > Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender or > culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly. > > Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what? That > doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide > that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser human. > And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see the > filter as proposed as censorship. > > The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And > just > as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why is > it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or she > sees a vulva? That's what I don't get. > Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which use 1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe. Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different would we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian I&B ministry issues or Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than me. Regards Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
