[WikiEN-l] RK, naughty pictures, and how better to flame me

Tue Feb 15 22:36:41 UTC 2005

Anthere is entirely right about RK's notification -- I
botched it badly, and have apologized about four
times, but I'll do it again if necessary.  No
sanctions should apply to RK for any editing of
Judaism-related articles prior to his having been
informed upon his return.  However, RK, I hope you
will consider calming your rhetoric about the
allegedly unusual punishment levied against you. 
Theresa has given you excellent advice which I hope
you will take.  If you don't want to appeal to the AC,
talk to Jimbo -- if he feels you were unfairly treated
(which I think you implied in your comment about an
email you received from him), surely he has the right
(some would say the responsibility) to reverse the
decision.  Either way, I am sure that both the AC and
Jimbo would appreciate your handling the matter as
calmly as possible -- I certainly wasn't "out to get
you" when I voted on the arbitration decision against
you, and I doubt other arbitrators were either.  If we
truly erred in our decision, I have faith it will be
remedied.

Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what
I'll say is this.  If Wikipedia decides as a community
it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I
won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop
recommending it to most of the people I currently
recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage
children, given my work in a high school).  You can
call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the
names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will
let you), but those are the cold hard facts.

And I have to be honest: I will probably not choose to
introduce my students to Wikipedia with a class
project (as I had hoped to do) if the photos are
displayed inline.  Too many questions to have to
answer to administrators (real-life school ones)
about.  Again, you can call us censorious or
narrow-minded or anything you like, but as long as I
want to call myself employed, I'll have to live that
way.  I don't know if you think Wikipedia will lose
much by my ceasing to advocate it to every man, woman,
and child I talk to.  I'll let you decide for
yourself: certainly I don't think it's much of a
threat in strictly numerical terms (it won't affect
Wikipedia's pocketbook or editor population by more
than a few hundred bucks or a few editors either
direction)!  But it's the reality of the situation,
and I think all the talk about browsers, etc.
(frankly, I think 90%+ of our reader population either
doesn't know how to shut off photos or considers it
too great a hassle for WP to be worthwhile, but that's
unsubstantiated guesswork) ignores the truth of the
situation.

Noble principles are fine and all that, but even the
most remarkably open free speech laws recognize that
there are some kinds of speech not suitable to all
occasions.  Now go ahead and yell at me -- if you want
ammo, I use IE and subscribe to Christian moral and
ethical principles.  I'm sure someone can make use of
those against me. :-)

All my best to all of you, who keep my inbox full and
my brain moving.  I wish you good fortune this cold
February,

James W. Rosenzweig
jwrosenzweig at yahoo.com

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com 