[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug-gne]Two official "tiers" of moderation

From: Tom Chance
Subject: [Bug-gne]Two official "tiers" of moderation
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:06:21 -0800 (PST)

I think the problem here is that in principle (IMHO)
Mike is correct in saying we shouldn't influence GNE
in any way, other than to maintain a true freedom
about it. But there is the problem that 99% of people
will violently disagree with you. I was having a
discussion about this with my dad, and he said he was
appauled that I wanted people to be able to put on
racist or pro-Nazi articles!

The thing we have to consider here is first and
foremost who are we making this resource for?
Ourselves, or the public? If it is for the public,
then we have to be aware of their feelings without
compromising the ethic of GNE. The only way I can see
of doing this (sidestepping legal/mirror issues for a
moment) is to allow everything we can onto it, and
explain VERY carefully, and succinctly, on our front
page, what GNE is all about. We have to be quite sure
that GNE is not in any way associated with the views
posted on it, and ensure people see that we mean only
to say that every opinion deserves to be published no
matter how bad/idioticit may seem. We have to impress
on people, basically, that we are trying to provide
the world with a very full view of the world, but we
are not trying to promote, or give limelight to,
minority views. We are giving every view an equal

If we could take that as a starting point, then worry
about legal issues, that'd be a good step. From there
on I would suggest GNE has two official

1) The complete GNE
2) The socially "acceptable" GNE.

So if people want to browse a resource without
articles on how to rape, or how to beat up a black,
then they can, and they won't ever have to read the
other articles. They will still get a lot of worth out
of GNE though, worth that they cannot find elsewhere.
If a person wants to browse the entirely uncensored
resource, then they can do so.

In terms of moderation, I would say they are both
governed by the same pool of moderators. When a
moderator views an article, instead of my proposed one
"submit" button, there could be two: 

1) Submit To GNE
2) Submit To GNEC           <---GNE Censored

All moderators would be informed of the rules involved
in each one:

1) GNE... accept anything that is "free", not
dangerous to the resource (like viruses and binary
bombs etc.), and is comprehensible

2) GNEC... as above, but in addition we run the
"informative" and not "damaging to people today" rule.

Will that be o.k.? Because I can see an equal validity
in both sides of the argument.

Tom Chance

--- Mike Warren <address@hidden> wrote: >
Alexander Braun <address@hidden>
> writes:
> > Mike, to answer your question, what should
> considered to be harmfull
> > to other people: [..] But I give you an example of
> harming, which
> > happened just a few weeks ago: In Munich a group
> of skins had beaten
> > up a Greek person. Two Turks were helping him, so
> he did survive.
> Yes, this is harm.
> > Some days later a French site promoted to beat up
> or kill these two
> > Turks. And this is definitely harming.
> No it's not.
> > The thesis that black and white people are
> different is just
> > rubbish.
> True.
> > But it is not harming.
> True.
> > If the same thesis contains passages
> > demanding to enslave blacks again, or "at least"
> to beat them, kill
> > them or discriminate against them in any other
> form does harm.
> The essay itself would not be harm; only if people
> acted on it would
> it become harmful (and such people should certainly
> be punished).
> > The bottom line of this project is to protect
> freedom. We can not
> > protect freedom by protecting people fighting
> freedom.
> Why not?
> > It might be good to have a revisionist paper on
> GNE (if it would not
> > be illegal), so a good historian could show the
> world why this is
> > rubbish.
> I agree.
> > It's definitely not good to promote harm to people
> - that's why we
> > here, isn't it?
> I agree that it's not good to promote harm. I
> disagree that people who
> *are* promoting harm should be silenced. Should we
> publish such things
> at GNE? If we do not, then we are inflicting
> editorial control on the
> GNE repository, and I think the only place where
> such control should
> exist is at the classifier level. This gives people
> who disagree with
> ``our'' editorial policy the chance to make their
> own.
> If we were to inflict a single editorial policy on
> GNE, then what's
> the point? Why not just merge with Nupedia and get
> our editorial
> opinions heard there?
> > Of course you are right, that it might be a quite
> subjective
> > manner. So the only solution (imho) is to discuss
> some basic rules
> > which people have to follow, if they want to post
> their articles.
> This would be a useful discussion for a classifier
> project.
> > We did this on the technical area by preferring
> only-text articles
> > against M$-Word articles.
> But this doesn't silence anyone, or force them to
> use different tools!
> > I can't see why the use of a non-free tool
> producing non-free format
> > should be worse than promoting to kill people. It
> would lead the
> > project ad absurdum.
> We shouldn't care what tools people use. But if we
> accept formats
> which we cannot convert using free software, then
> our freedom is
> compromised. As has be pointed out re: .GIFs, it
> might indeed be
> possible to accept them and use a free-software
> program to convert
> them to PNGs for storage. IANAL, though.
> > GNE got it's rules about linking. it got it's
> rules about formats
> > and these rules are not only good they are
> necessary [..]
> The are necessary only as far as freedom is
> concerned.
> > so just let's take the rules Tom made up,or the
> one I made up or
> > both and discuss them. (Personally I like Tom's
> rules more - they
> > emphasize the same aspect but sound quite more
> free)
> I don't like the rules which limit articles based on
> their content
> (obviously beyond getting rid of clear unreadable
> (i.e. binary)
> garbage).
> --
> mike [at] mike [dash] warren [dot] com
> <URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
> GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A  0CF9
> 1087 0884 5799 11BD
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gne mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]