Am 29.11.2011 14:48, schrieb Andre Engels: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Tobias Oelgarte > <tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> I neither agree. We decide what belongs to which preset (or who will do >> it?), and it is meant to filter out controversial content. Therefore we >> define what controversial content is, - or at least we tell the people, >> what we think, that might be controversial, while we also tell them >> (exclusion method) that other things aren't controversial. > No, we don't tell that other things aren't controversial. I consider > that a ridiculous conclusion to draw. It's just that we have not yet > found that it is under one of the categories we specified as > blockable. There are other categories that might be specified, but > alas, we don't have them yet. Do you remember your last mail in which you said that my viewpoints are extreme? I was writing that considering anything controversial or not are the only neutral positions to take. You opposed it strongly. Now you start your claim with the preposition that we will eventually find categories in a way that anything could be seen as controversial? Thats a 180° turn from one mail to the other. Just to find new arguments?
I will read the rest of your answers later on. For now i have some work to do. Maybe you want to enlighten me how that is possible. nya~ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
