<joke>I have a dream, that one day my four little adoptees will be judged
not by their userboxes but by the content of their contributions</joke>
I say we ignore the userbox problem. Seriously. The kind of person who would
have userboxes advocating for killing or pedophilia is just the kind of POV
pusher that gets burnout or is weeded out through poor behavior. The vast
majority of good Wikipedians know that inflammatory userboxes are a bad
thing.
On Jan 19, 2008 1:09 PM, Richard Symonds <hawkertyphoon(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Firstly, there's the issue of inflamatory
userboxes. It appears that>
userboxes supporting American troops in Iraq are
acceptable, but userboxes>
supporting the Iraqi insurgensy aren't. Userboxes supporting the killing
of>
>Iraqi insurgents are acceptable, but ones that support the killing of>
American troops aren't. Surely both the
"support" ones should be
acceptable,> >whilst the ones that support
killing should be delete. Then
there's the ones> >that advocate peodophilia. Users who have these often
argue that we accept> >homosexual userboxes, which is just a stupid
argument, but they don't seem> >to be able accept that. >The answer is, of
course, to ban all such userboxes and be done with>it. Trying to decide what
it is and isn't acceptable to express>support for is just asking for
trouble.
Or, of course, to accept them all. As long as the userboxes dont actually
*kill* troops, or *engage in* paedophilia, there are no policies against it,
are there? We shouldn't have *any* bias here, pro- or anti- anything.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l