[Wikipedia-l] Jimbo ? Others advices ?

Fri Jan 31 07:03:02 UTC 2003

> I think I remember stating somewhere that I gave just
> the recent editions.
> The first edits were *awfully* biaised.
>
> But, I really don't think the last ones were so much.
> In any case, there were not so biaised that the only
> reaction to them be to *remove* them immediately,
> without trying any cooperative editing. Cooperation is
> not about removing what doesnot please you. It is not
> about saying people are vandals and write only loads
> of shit when you don't agree with them. It is slightly
> more nicer than that.

Racism and anti-Semitism are not a problem of biais.
Firstly it is attack to human dignity.
Secondly it is forbidden by the french law.

> It is interesting to note you stated the info on
> racialism was probably coming from "My Kampf", and it

It was a joke on a talk page. Please don't put my sentence outside the
context

> turned out to come from a "sos racism" site :-)

Not only from that site.

> Whatever.
>
> The last edits do not justify banning

For the moment, only Curry started to talk about banning.
Personnaly, I don't care.
I didn't touch the Philippe articles that I though to be acceptable.
But I will still move to talk page all atrocity his is able to say.

> There is nothing to justify the insults you use

There is nothing to justify incitement to racism

> The french-speaking wikipedia does not have to follow
> the french law. Lybiens also speak french, and quite a
> number of countries in northern africa. Some of them
> are under islamist republic. I am sure some of them
> would find the actual content going against some of
> their laws; Would you accept them saying it should be
> removed because it goes against their laws ? I don't
> think so, but where is the difference ? When the
> french-speaking wikipedia is printed to be distributed
> in France, we'll have to worry about that. When it
> will be printed and distributed in Lybia, we'll have
> to worry about law. Not now.

ok

> Following the UN point of view on wikipedia is wrong.
> It is *against* the very idea of a neutral and
> extensive encyclopedia.

?

> And whether it is true or not that human races do not
> exist, some have theorized there were several races,
> and this information should be in wikipedia. And as Ec
> put it "racialism" is a theory, and must be
> differenciated from "racism" which add the notion of
> superiority of one race over the other. It is wrong to
> qualify racism every theory that talk about race, and
> as such to remove it from wikipedia, and it is wrong
> to qualify as a racist every person who support this
> type of theory.

I'm not agasint speak about those theory, I'm agaisnt those who claim there
are right.

> As for all the below sentences, I have no worry. With
> about 10 people jumping on any edits to immediately
> remove them - just in case it might be offensive (and
> before checking if it really is), there is very little
> chance it will damage any reputation.
>
> Meanwhile, we have a bunch of slightly better
> articles, no ?

Except you, all wikipedians seem to agree the fact Philippe don't write
articles to halp wikipedia, but onlu to bug us.

Aoineko