Nathan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Phil Nash <phn...@blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote: >> Peter Damian wrote: >>> I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this. >>> Under Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by >>> Chinese judicial >>> departments for violating Chinese law >>> http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/461876 His own community has >>> delivered a verdict upon him: he is a criminal. He deserves 'fair >>> treatment' no more than the trolls who have disrupted the Wikipedia >>> deserve so-called 'fair treatment'. Those who violate community >>> norms, such as Xiaobo (in the case of China) or many of the >>> disruptive elements who create havoc on the project >>> by their offensive comments and offsite attacks. The Chinese >>> government >>>> imposed a blackout on news of the award: quite right. This is >>>> exactly what >>> would happen on Wikipedia, by means of blocks in article space, talk >>> pages and email access. More power to the community! >>> >>> Peter >> >> This is so naive a post that I can only believe that someone has >> hijacked your account, and I can't wait for your amendments to >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle_Martyrs >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi >> >> I expect you might have an apology and weakly-argued defence >> tomorrow, when you might have sobered up, but right now you are on >> thin ice in epistemological terms and are closer to a 17-year old >> newly-"radicalised" student than a considered scholar. >> >> Shame on you, and that's without discussing the legal system of >> China. >> >> >> > > You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated comparison > between the Chinese government's approach to public debate and > Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu Xiaobo has been > mistreated (which he has been), and also that he and others have been > mistreated by Wikipedia in a conceptually similar fashion. If you > think he actually believes Liu Xiaobo is a criminal deviant, I think > you missed the point. > > Nathan
He claims to be a philosopher, not a satirist. Meanwhile, any comparison between the Chinese judicial system and Wikipedia can only be [[WP:GODWIN'S LAW|insulting]]. I regard the post as utterly misguided, and not the first I have seen in recent days. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
