Confessions of a image-maniac.
I have a image that needs to go. It's license is dubious.
I love the image so much, even if its color's ridiculous.
I promised myself it would go on New Years Day.
If I tag it speedy delete will someone make it go away
Before I change my mind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:0184_Lantern_slide_woman%2C_Ford%2C_pipe…
--Sydney Poore
Go Bengals!
A brief contrarian point of view. If Wikipedia is to succeed in any
measure to move beyond its tabloid status then transparency is essential.
That is, every admin must necessarily have their identity exposed and it
surprises me somewhat to see the resistance here - and I find it hard to
justify.
Authority (in the sense of an encyclopedia) comes because the
individuals involved are transparent and respected in some conventional
sense. Hidden identity provides no basis for authority since the
landscape of individuals is unknown and the changes to that landscape
impossible to track. Such that, even if a group of anonymous admins is
able to command respect for a period, there is no guarantee, no way to
judge, that a group of admins have the same capacity in the future.
Indeed, if the current group of admins do manage to establish public
confidence then the public is immediately at risk since that group can
be opaquely usurped.
The short end is that for the long term welfare of Wikipedia admins -
all contributors - need to be transparent - otherwise Wikipedia is
simply a propaganda engine.
That the journal Nature should give any support to the scientific
articles in Wikipedia is a cause of great concern - since Wikipedia is
not a specialist encyclopedia they have by inference given unfounded
credence to the whole.
With respect,
Steven
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevenzenith
I have been blocked for alleged vandalism. I think
this is a mistake. The blockage applies to my IP
address not my user name. I am unable to email the
admin who decided to block me. This has happened
before, I think things are getting confused.
My username is PatGallacher.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/
And how exactly is "pedophilia advocacy" not some neologistic term itself?
"Childlove movement" is the name by which they refer to themselves and
subsequently how they are referred to by others.
Mgm
On 12/31/05, homey2005(a)sympatico.ca <homey2005(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> "Childlove movement" is a POV euphemism for pedophilia advocacy. There is
> currently and AFD on the article at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Childlove_move…, we have a small number of pedophilia advocates (self-identified on
> their user pages) who have been editing pedophilia related articles in an
> attempt to promote their POV.
>
> What this means is there may not be "consensus" at the AFD to take action
> such as deleting, merging or renaming the article. However, I think it's
> quite clear that the name of the article at least is POV.
>
> Just as we would not allow a small group of dedicated anti-Semities to
> maintain an article title such as "Holohoax" we shouldn't allow a small
> group of pedophiles to use wikipedia to promote their preferred terminology
> of "childlover".
>
> Any ideas as to how we should handle this? If a small group of dedicated
> advocates can block consensus that is a serious threat to our NPOV policy.
>
> Homey
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
