thank you! h
Am 29.10.2011 13:31, schrieb FT2: > Having checked the original blog > post<http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/>, > I think it's either a rare exception of poorly chosen wording, or shows a > judgment within WMF that I can't agree with. > > I remember when the director of featured articles on enwiki scrupulously > treated all topics equal - whether shocking, controversial, mundane, or > taboo -- because the job of the front page of an *encyclopedia* is to > showcase high quality knowledge, not present value judgments on it. > > Value judgments on topics are the role of members of the public and end > users, who legitimately hold views that they like math and hate politics, > love politics but hate pornography, love porn but oppose images of religious > figures, as they individually choose. The job of *encyclopedists* however > is to treat these all as knowledge and not to color or pre-filter them by > considering some topics more "worthy" than others or less "suitable" to be > included as knowledge or showcased as high quality writing. > > Does that include front page exposure? In the view of the previous en:wp > Director of Featured Articles, definitely yes. His rationale at the time > this came up on en:wp was that to do otherwise is to be ashamed apologists > of content that our community has created. He also observed that making the > point publicly of our utter neutrality had value in itself. If de:wiki (or > any project) put [[vulva]] on its front page, and the article was of high > enough quality to do so - and it would have been heavily scrutinized before > as a controversial topic - then at that point it's a topic like any other > and it goes there on its own merits. > > *It is core to our ethos* that we are neutral in our views on topics, > whether mundane, obscure or emotive to some people. We could not honestly > claim neutrality if we signal via our content nomination process that some > topics are not as "valid" as others or are more "shameful" or less > "acceptable" to learn about, or to be made visible. > > In this case, [[vulva]] is of more than academic interest to 1/2 the human > race as a normal lifelong body part --- one that is often strikingly lacking > in information (cultural taboos on women's education and sexual knowledge > are still very common globally and cause untold harm!) > > Should this be outweighed in the balance by the fact that the other (usually > male!) half of humanity sees in it a source of purile humor or an "ONOES! > THE CHILDREN"..... especially when fully half of those under-16 children > have one of the said body parts and have as much right to it being treated > as valid knowledge as they would treat an eyeball, an arm, a cancer or a > method of DNA sequencing... and without us signalling it as "shameful" to > learn about by virtue of exclusion from equal handling. > > I know which of these stances I respect more. > > FT2 > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to >> put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a >> clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the >> imposition of a filter from outside. >> > _______________________________________________ > 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