On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala<aprabh...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta<bishakhada...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic<mill...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker<risker...@gmail.com> 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. >> >> >> There is a big difference between *ratings* and *censorship*, a >> difference which the Indian government has routinely ignored or >> deliberately overlooked, as, I suspect is happening here in this >> discussion. Naturally, there are circumstances where ratings systems can >> be used to create effective censorship, but this doesn't have to be the >> case, and indeed isn't in various parts of the world - evidenced by the >> fact that virtually every country in the world has a ratings system for >> film. (Including Germany, by the way). >> > How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere? > > Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?
No. I'm suggesting that: Ratings are different from censorship. Sometimes, ratings can be used to create censorship. Often, ratings do just that - rate. For film. In several countries around the world, including India, and Germany. > > Theo > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l