Steward elections: summary, week one

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
If people want to express themselves in a discriminatory way, they can do
soelsewhere. When people vote against someone with the motivation that the
person is black, then indeed we are better off without him. I am all in
favour of freedom of expression, but this is not a debating club.
Discriminatory opinions and practices are not acceptable and consequently
votes expressing such opinions and practices are not acceptable either.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/2/13 Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>

> So we don't believe in freedom of expression?
>
> When somebody in a position of authority abuses that power and
> discriminates, yes, their power should be removed and possibly they
> should be blocked. But in the case of someone saying "I vote no
> because this person is black", their vote should just be discounted.
> They are entitled to their opinion.
> skype: node.ue
>
>
>
> 2009/2/13 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>:
> > Hoi,
> > The pope has it right when he does not accept at all the notion that the
> > holocaust did not occur. People may have this opinion, but that does not
> > mean that you have to accept that they may express their opinions
> > everywhere.
> >
> > It is one thing to have unacceptable opinions, it is another to express
> > them. Our projects are not a platform for agitation. I do welcome the
> > blocking of obvious discriminatory practices in any of our projects.
> > Thanks,
> >       Gerard
> >
> > 2009/2/13 Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> Blocked? I don't think we should ever block anybody for having an
> >> opinion. If they push their POV in articles, fine; if they use racial
> >> slurs repeatedly, sure, but even if someone is of the opinion that
> >> white or black or Asian people, or women or men or anybody else, is
> >> "scum", or any opinion like that, it shouldn't be a blockable offense
> >> to just hold such an opinion.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> skype: node.ue
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2009/2/12 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
> >> > geni wrote:
> >> >> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <[hidden email]>:
> >> >>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support
> such
> >> >>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I
> don't
> >> >>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ting
> >> >>
> >> >> Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
> >> >> record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
> >> >> assassination the citizen of another country for example).
> >> >>
> >> >> The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential
> >> >> threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
> >> >> annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.
> >> >
> >> > And how this relate to the status of stewarship?
> >> > Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew?
> >> > or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e.
> >> > not acceptable.
> >> > Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and
> any
> >> > user using these should be blocked.
> >> >
> >> > Yann
> >> > --
> >> > http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> >> > http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> >> > http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> >> > http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

> 2009/2/9 Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> The "real danger" is that stewards have access to global checkuser, so
>> they can theoretically be used to trace users when forced by secret
>> police of an non-democratic country.  However, various special forces
>> and secret services of democratic countries also use to force their
>> citizens (and other countries citizens as well) to reveal various
>> information, so we can use this argument against almost any country.
>> Maybe global checkuser function should be given to Wikimedia Office?
>> (Like Wikimedia Office actions function?)
>>    
> For a western government the cost of the PR mess is unlikely to
> outweigh any benefits. There are also various other issues that mean
> that such interference is unlikely (the CIA legally can't touch
> wikipedia since it is US based and I doubt any other intelligence
> agency wants to annoy the US).
>
> So any attack from western countries is going to have to come through
> fairly open legal means. Court orders and the like. Court orders tend
> to be public which gives us a chance to react before the problem
> rather than after.
>
>  
You seem to have forgotten the anti-terrorist paranoia built into the
Patriot Act where, among other things, a library can be required to
provide a record of the books you have taken out and forbidden to let
you know about the demand.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Yaroslav M. Blanter
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

>> Hoi,
>> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
>> ignore
>> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
>> decides
>> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus,
>> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
>> Thanks,
>>        GerardM
>>    
>
> I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
> majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
> unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
> but are too shy of their English to express them.

As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in
practice it can't work.  I voted on this nomination without comment.  If
my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves
little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.

The most important points can often be made with very few words.  That
has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are
seldom at a loss for words.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However,
when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak and
motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable
position is yours.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>

> Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> >> Hoi,
> >> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
> >> ignore
> >> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
> >> decides
> >> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on
> consensus,
> >> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
> >> Thanks,
> >>        GerardM
> >>
> >
> > I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
> > majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
> > unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
> > but are too shy of their English to express them.
>
> As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in
> practice it can't work.  I voted on this nomination without comment.  If
> my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves
> little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.
>
> The most important points can often be made with very few words.  That
> has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are
> seldom at a loss for words.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one

Ray Saintonge
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However,
> when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak and
> motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable
> position is yours.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>  

My comments were directed to both sides of the issue.  I agree that the
misperception which you describe is far too common, but so too is the
tendency for being tediously repetitive.

Ec

> 2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge
>
>  
>> Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>>    
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
>>>> ignore
>>>> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
>>>> decides
>>>> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on
>>>>        
>> consensus,
>>    
>>>> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>        GerardM
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
>>> majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
>>> unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
>>> but are too shy of their English to express them.
>>>      
>> As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in
>> practice it can't work.  I voted on this nomination without comment.  If
>> my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves
>> little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.
>>
>> The most important points can often be made with very few words.  That
>> has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are
>> seldom at a loss for words.
>>
>> Ec
>>    


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections: summary, week one

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
It is easy to prevent such a perception. It is just by referring to the vote
of someone else who provides the motivation you agree with. In this way you
prevent an unfortunate perception and you are not being tediously
repetitive.

The bottom line is that it is in your interest to guard your reputation by
preventing your association with positions that are not acceptable.. to you.
At the same time when unacceptable arguments are used, the person evaluating
the vote and the arguments has to have a clue as to your intentions. When
your motivation is valid but unknowable, you run the risk that your vote is
ignored.
Thanks,
       GerardM

2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However,
> > when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak
> and
> > motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable
> > position is yours.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
>
> My comments were directed to both sides of the issue.  I agree that the
> misperception which you describe is far too common, but so too is the
> tendency for being tediously repetitive.
>
> Ec
> > 2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge
> >
> >
> >> Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Hoi,
> >>>> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
> >>>> ignore
> >>>> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
> >>>> decides
> >>>> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on
> >>>>
> >> consensus,
> >>
> >>>> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>        GerardM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
> >>> majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
> >>> unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
> >>> but are too shy of their English to express them.
> >>>
> >> As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in
> >> practice it can't work.  I voted on this nomination without comment.  If
> >> my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves
> >> little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.
> >>
> >> The most important points can often be made with very few words.  That
> >> has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are
> >> seldom at a loss for words.
> >>
> >> Ec
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123