On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:29:30PM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Chad Perrin said:
While I'm inclined to agree with your
sentiment on this matter, at
least moreso than the converse, it seems blindingly obvious to me that
the "accusation" in question was meant as an expression of a perceived
trend, from one person's perspective.
I may have misread it, but Kevin's wording was as follows:
"I've come to the realization that people are searching out nude pictures
to put in the 'pedia. They are looking to stir up trouble, mostly to make
a point."
That seems to be a pretty specific accusation, aimed at a subset of those
who upload images, specifically images involving nudity, accusing them of
doing so with the intention of breaking Wikipedia policy.
I take that very seriously. It's an extremely damaging accusation, and if
Kevin has evidence to support it he should make it public. If he doesn't
well we'll know he's just hand-waving, indulging in attempt to denigrate
those who have uploaded images involving nudity.
Whatever happened to an assumption of good faith? You're assuming bad
faith on the part of KR here. I, for one, didn't interpret his comments
to in any way involve an intended "denigration" of any individuals in
particular, and only to make a generalized statement about behavioral
trends that seems to fit with the sort of irresponsible behavior that is
all too often endemic to the Internet as a whole. How about, before
requiring he prove his "accusations", you prove that he intended any
accusation?
Nitpicking asinine little details can be a two-way street. I'm almost
embarrassed to be perceived as agreeing with you on the subject of
whether or not there's anything to worry about in the posting of the
Winslet image because of your tactics in trying to make a point.
--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite |
http://ccd.apotheon.org ]