Re: [Bug-gne]Two official "tiers" of moderation

[Tom Chance]

So it would be like Mike Warren's classifier system,
but without a full classification given by GNE. You
know, we could be cheeky here and find some server
which we could host it all off, and somebody who was
willing could publish their own classification,
prominently called "All Articles", so that there was a
classification without any editorial control. Because
it would be a pity to hold the information but then
not present it to the world.

But if us storing it but not publishing it gets around
the issue, then I definitely think we should do it. We
really don't want GNE to become marred, but we could
afford to lose one classification, and perhaps help in
the fight for the freedom of that "everything"
classification. Now who could hold this server... we'd
need somebody in a liberal country who would be
willing to walk the line. Um...

Tom Chance


--- Bob Dodd <address@hidden> wrote: >
Another way to view it may be to look at how the
> copyright libraries
> handle such material. They take all published
> material, but their
> "public" face to the world ensures that highly
> contentious material is
> handled seperately. It's why you need a jolly good
> accademic reason
> before the British Library will let you see its back
> catalog of
> "Razzle" :-))
> 
> GNE could do something similar, presenting it's
> content only as an API
> to classifiers, so that people don't accidentally
> stumble upon dubious
> content - they have to actively choose a classifier
> who provides that
> type of content. GNE would then be viewed as two
> projects: an archive,
> and (at least) one classifier to present its content
> to the world.
> GNE's own classifier could then be a strict censor
> of certain types
> material, leaving *anyone* who wants to, to provide
> a more expansive
> classification (but it wouldn't be part of GNE, and
> hence you would not
> have GNE's name associated with presentation of
> porn, neo-nazi material
> etc.) Archiving such material, as in a digital
> copyright library, yes.
> Presentation of the material, no.
> 
> /bob
> 
> --- Tom Chance <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I think the problem here is that in principle
> (IMHO)
> > Mike is correct in saying we shouldn't influence
> GNE
> > in any way, other than to maintain a true freedom
> > about it. But there is the problem that 99% of
> people
> > will violently disagree with you. I was having a
> > discussion about this with my dad, and he said he
> was
> > appauled that I wanted people to be able to put on
> > racist or pro-Nazi articles!
> > 
> > The thing we have to consider here is first and
> > foremost who are we making this resource for?
> > Ourselves, or the public? If it is for the public,
> > then we have to be aware of their feelings without
> > compromising the ethic of GNE. The only way I can
> see
> > of doing this (sidestepping legal/mirror issues
> for a
> > moment) is to allow everything we can onto it, and
> > explain VERY carefully, and succinctly, on our
> front
> > page, what GNE is all about. We have to be quite
> sure
> > that GNE is not in any way associated with the
> views
> > posted on it, and ensure people see that we mean
> only
> > to say that every opinion deserves to be published
> no
> > matter how bad/idioticit may seem. We have to
> impress
> > on people, basically, that we are trying to
> provide
> > the world with a very full view of the world, but
> we
> > are not trying to promote, or give limelight to,
> > minority views. We are giving every view an equal
> > showing.
> > 
> > If we could take that as a starting point, then
> worry
> > about legal issues, that'd be a good step. From
> there
> > on I would suggest GNE has two official
> > categorisations:
> > 
> > 1) The complete GNE
> > 2) The socially "acceptable" GNE.
> > 
> > So if people want to browse a resource without
> > articles on how to rape, or how to beat up a
> black,
> > then they can, and they won't ever have to read
> the
> > other articles. They will still get a lot of worth
> out
> > of GNE though, worth that they cannot find
> elsewhere.
> > If a person wants to browse the entirely
> uncensored
> > resource, then they can do so.
> > 
> > In terms of moderation, I would say they are both
> > governed by the same pool of moderators. When a
> > moderator views an article, instead of my proposed
> one
> > "submit" button, there could be two: 
> > 
> > 1) Submit To GNE
> > 2) Submit To GNEC           <---GNE Censored
> > 
> > All moderators would be informed of the rules
> involved
> > in each one:
> > 
> > 1) GNE... accept anything that is "free", not
> > dangerous to the resource (like viruses and binary
> > bombs etc.), and is comprehensible
> > 
> > 2) GNEC... as above, but in addition we run the
> > "informative" and not "damaging to people today"
> rule.
> > 
> > 
> > Will that be o.k.? Because I can see an equal
> validity
> > in both sides of the argument.
> > 
> > 
> > Tom Chance
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- Mike Warren <address@hidden> wrote: >
> > Alexander Braun <address@hidden>
> > > writes:
> > > 
> > > > Mike, to answer your question, what should
> > > considered to be harmfull
> > > > to other people: [..] But I give you an
> example of
> > > harming, which
> > > > happened just a few weeks ago: In Munich a
> group
> > > of skins had beaten
> > > > up a Greek person. Two Turks were helping him,
> so
> > > he did survive.
> > > 
> > > Yes, this is harm.
> > > 
> > > > Some days later a French site promoted to beat
> up
> > > or kill these two
> > > > Turks. And this is definitely harming.
> > > 
> > > No it's not.
> > > 
> > > > The thesis that black and white people are
> > > different is just
> > > > rubbish.
> > > 
> > > True.
> > > 
> > > > But it is not harming.
> > > 
> > > True.
> > > 
> > > > If the same thesis contains passages
> > > > demanding to enslave blacks again, or "at
> least"
> > > to beat them, kill
> > > > them or discriminate against them in any other
> > > form does harm.
> > > 
> > > The essay itself would not be harm; only if
> people
> > > acted on it would
> > > it become harmful (and such people should
> certainly
> > > be punished).
> > > 
> > > > The bottom line of this project is to protect
> > > freedom. We can not
> > > > protect freedom by protecting people fighting
> > > freedom.
> > > 
> > > Why not?
> > > 
> > > > It might be good to have a revisionist paper
> on
> > > GNE (if it would not
> > > > be illegal), so a good historian could show
> the
> > > world why this is
> > > > rubbish.
> > > 
> > > I agree.
> > > 
> > > > It's definitely not good to promote harm to
> people
> > > - that's why we
> > > > here, isn't it?
> > > 
> > > I agree that it's not good to promote harm. I
> > > disagree that people who
> > > *are* promoting harm should be silenced. Should
> we
> > > publish such things
> > > at GNE? If we do not, then we are inflicting
> > > editorial control on the
> > > GNE repository, and I think the only place where
> > > such control should
> > > exist is at the classifier level. This gives
> people
> > > who disagree with
> > > ``our'' editorial policy the chance to make
> their
> > > own.
> > > 
> > > If we were to inflict a single editorial policy
> on
> > > GNE, then what's
> > > the point? Why not just merge with Nupedia and
> get
> > > our editorial
> > > opinions heard there?
> > > 
> > > > Of course you are right, that it might be a
> quite
> > > subjective
> > > > manner. So the only solution (imho) is to
> discuss
> > > some basic rules
> > > > which people have to follow, if they want to
> post
> > > their articles.
> > > 
> > > This would be a useful discussion for a
> classifier
> > > project.
> > > 
> > > > We did this on the technical area by
> preferring
> > > only-text articles
> > > > against M$-Word articles.
> > > 
> > > But this doesn't silence anyone, or force them
> to
> > > use different tools!
> > > 
> > > > I can't see why the use of a non-free tool
> > > producing non-free format
> > > > should be worse than promoting to kill people.
> It
> > > would lead the
> > > > project ad absurdum.
> > > 
> > > We shouldn't care what tools people use. But if
> we
> > > accept formats
> > > which we cannot convert using free software,
> then
> > > our freedom is
> > > compromised. As has be pointed out re: .GIFs, it
> > > might indeed be
> > > possible to accept them and use a free-software
> > > program to convert
> > > them to PNGs for storage. IANAL, though.
> > > 
> > > > GNE got it's rules about linking. it got it's
> > > rules about formats
> > > > and these rules are not only good they are
> > > necessary [..]
> > > 
> > > The are necessary only as far as freedom is
> > > concerned.
> > > 
> > > > so just let's take the rules Tom made up,or
> the
> > > one I made up or
> > > > both and discuss them. (Personally I like
> Tom's
> > > rules more - they
> > > > emphasize the same aspect but sound quite more
> > > free)
> > > 
> > > I don't like the rules which limit articles
> based on
> > 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great
> prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gne mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/