You would then oppose userboxes saying that someone supports their own
government? Can one have a userbox saying one supports the Republican
Party, or only that one is interested in it? Or can one only support, not
oppose? Lots of different things get different people upset. Some get upset
at indications of some particular religious or racial or sexual identities.
Why is political different? How many must think it unpleasant? Yes,
WP:NPOV it is, viewed rightly.
On Jan 30, 2008 9:05 AM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, thats exactly the problem. Such userboxes tend
to stir up a hornet's
nest, and other users who are involved in related articles may become
defensive as a result.
For example, say you edit an article about Israel or Palestine. I go to
your
userpage and I see political issues you advocate. Then I start believing
in
you being a Zionist or Antisemitic (or whatever) and treat you as such.
This
seems to be the typical process especially on controversial issues.
Especially new users get unnecessarily excited over such statements of
political views on userpages. Even oldies have a hard time when you see
views that are very unpleasant. For example imagine a userbox in support
of
the viet cong and a vietnam veteran seeing it who otherwise is a rational
person on even issues related to the vietnam war.
Userboxes are to comply with WP:NPOV. Why shouldn't they? If people want
to
advocate their political views they can do so on their own site, not on
wikipedia.
On Jan 26, 2008 2:12 AM, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.