Mike, Very good. I subscribe to everything you wrote and I'll second any proposal you or anyone else makes in that direction.
Sincerely, Virgilio A. P. Machado At 07:30 20-10-2010, you wrote: >Hello, > > From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some >interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to >conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint. > >People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to >do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away >because it is uncomfortable. > >Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these >interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many >people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not >fair to the people involved. > >Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and >well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the >list. > >http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts > >Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable, >that does make you look balanced and trustworthy. > >The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such >accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more >credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is >any merit in what they say. > >This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed ones. > >Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful, >Spam etc, lets call that evil content. > >But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted >did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not >notable. > >We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being >deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad >content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content. > >Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the >Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted >and gone forever without proper process or review. > >In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning >of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people >from information that they want and need in an unfair manner. > >Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in >Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every >television show, is that what you really want? > >I think there should be room for things in places that are not not >notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also >need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not >mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like >like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the >Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even >if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of >people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving >the project of important information because they are not able to get >started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating >political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a >chance to be heard. > >We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the >conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust. > >thanks, >mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
