Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Application: r to Thryduulf |
→Application: r to Masem |
||
| Line 2,033: | Line 2,033: | ||
::::::I will also point out that in the past, when there has been discussions on changes to policy or guideline pages that have otherwise ended in no clear consensus, the usual solution is to maintain the status quo, until a better change is suggested. This is what I'm seeing here; NOTCENSORED covers much of the concerns given but not is the exact words or in as many words as some would like; adding those words however leads to potential misunderstand others have pointed out. I would project that the end result of this discussion is that NOTCENSORED stays as it is, since I'm not seeing any proposal for change that has clear acceptance. Even if you feel that the lack of clear instruction may be harmful in the future, we'll deal with that when it comes. Right now, there's such a loose question of what is needed to be done to make more discussion less helpful since we're just running in circles. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
::::::I will also point out that in the past, when there has been discussions on changes to policy or guideline pages that have otherwise ended in no clear consensus, the usual solution is to maintain the status quo, until a better change is suggested. This is what I'm seeing here; NOTCENSORED covers much of the concerns given but not is the exact words or in as many words as some would like; adding those words however leads to potential misunderstand others have pointed out. I would project that the end result of this discussion is that NOTCENSORED stays as it is, since I'm not seeing any proposal for change that has clear acceptance. Even if you feel that the lack of clear instruction may be harmful in the future, we'll deal with that when it comes. Right now, there's such a loose question of what is needed to be done to make more discussion less helpful since we're just running in circles. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::How do you know [[User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Ludwigs2|his view]] is in the minority? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::How do you know [[User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Ludwigs2|his view]] is in the minority? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Masem: the intellectual relativism defense? I expected better. The fact that there is no 'correct' answer (a point I agree with) does not imply that there are no 'better' arguments, and better arguments are what are ''supposed'' to hold sway on project. Consensus is not majority rule, nor is it enforced obedience to the status quo, nor is it determined by vague ''ad populum'' assertions. What we have here is a few editors who have made reasonable proposals for consideration and a few other editors who have thoroughly disrupted the discussion by angrily opposing everything. With that in mind, I see no reason to stop trying to build consensus for my position, because I think my positions is both intellectually stronger and more in the interests of the encyclopedia than the current status quo. Unless you are instructing me to stop trying to build consensus using your position as a sysop? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 21:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::So the new argument is we are going overboard with the policy of not being censored because we offend the wrong sorts of people? The problem is to delete something entirely, the only purpose to do so in the case of muhammad, is to cater to religious prescripts of a faith. Granted they are a large faith but it is still trying to justify we should not worry about offense unless there are enough people or a specific group of interest involved. The fact is, over time there have been no less than half a dozen justifiable reasons to keep the pictures but they have been dismissed by specific individuals, when these same arguments are in line with other content on this project. The fact that there seems to be some sort of claim that "these images have to do more because they are offensive" is hog wash. At the end of the day the idea that people are offended and it shouldn't be so doesn't carry the day so as soon as I see some reasonable attempts at using policies that actually would be an impact not a simple IDONTLIKETHAT I will be happy to debate things at length. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::So the new argument is we are going overboard with the policy of not being censored because we offend the wrong sorts of people? The problem is to delete something entirely, the only purpose to do so in the case of muhammad, is to cater to religious prescripts of a faith. Granted they are a large faith but it is still trying to justify we should not worry about offense unless there are enough people or a specific group of interest involved. The fact is, over time there have been no less than half a dozen justifiable reasons to keep the pictures but they have been dismissed by specific individuals, when these same arguments are in line with other content on this project. The fact that there seems to be some sort of claim that "these images have to do more because they are offensive" is hog wash. At the end of the day the idea that people are offended and it shouldn't be so doesn't carry the day so as soon as I see some reasonable attempts at using policies that actually would be an impact not a simple IDONTLIKETHAT I will be happy to debate things at length. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent}} |
{{outdent}} |
||