imported>Import: Imported current content

2026-01-28T11:54:25Z

Imported current content

New page

Another interesting thing brought up, related to [[VandalismVersusEditorial]]. If someone has the right to [[FreedomOfExpression]] (Not just in the constitution, but here at [[WikiWorld]]), what should the boundaries be set at for what is and what is not expressable and should be removed?

===Discussion:
===
The minimal bounds has to be the legal bounds placed on our provider by their local, state, and national laws. So, no liability/slander ("StarPilot likes to do nasty things to likable people===="), fraudulent advertising of wonder products ("buy this snake oil and be teleported to jupiter!"), pornagraphic or warez material/links, are, or are most likely, all out of bounds.
====

Not sure of what else, although there is certainly a matter of respecting others contributions so that noone, for instances, goes through and erases all of someone's contributions (without their permission).

Anything else? ---StarPilot
----
Ahh, No, no, no. You don't get off that easy. You asked the question, your going to live with the answer. What I'm saying is that in order to determine the boundaries of [[VandalismVersusEditorial]], you have to first name the boundaries for what the expression is.

I propose though that you (StarPilot), me, [[JimScarver]], and anyone else that chooses join in a chat at a certain time to debate and name those standards. Agreed? --KenSchry

----
Depends on the time set, and where. I don't mind discussing it, I am just unsure how free [[WE]] mean for this channel of communication, sharing, and understanding to be. ''''we'''' (purposeful change) do know what the absolute miminums are. What else do ''''we'''' think needs to be present to facilitate the exchange of thoughts for the [[WE]]? ---StarPilot
----
I suggest that we use [[JimScarver]]'s yahoo chat at [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JimScarver/]] for the place, and as for the time, I guess we can just find what dates best for us. In reference to the ([[WE], ''''we'''') sarcasm, I said before that anyone is free to join us in this discussiom, and if you (StarPilot) feel that anyone that you know would be able to contribute to this discussion, then tell that person to come. This is an open topic, but what I meant to say before (Didn't say it quite clearly I think), is that [[JimScarver]], you and me should definately be there, you and me because we were the ones that brought this up, and [[JimScarver]] because...well...., even if he hasn't been part of this discussion, he is knowledge able of the subject. (That was pretty lame. I have to put more thought into how I word this. :-|| ) --KenSchry
----
Sigh. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was trying to make a distinction between the different we's. ''''we'''' are a small group. [[WikiWorld]] is meant to be a channel to allow the [[WE]] to discuss all legal issues, allow various ideas and concepts to be spread about the [[WE]], and foster co-operation, consideration, and understanding throughout the various groups of ''''we'''' that comprise the total [[WE]] (at least, as I have come to understand [[WikiWorld]] :-). As such, what may seem to be an offensive editorial to you or me could be merely an honest and blunt voicing of opinion and thought from the originator. So how do ''''we'''' formalize the tests for distinction between vandalism and rubbish that have no use being recorded in [[WikiWorld]], and not being merely overly sensitive or extra prudish? I am not sure ''''we'''' can formalize such a test, to be honest.

Yahoo, eh? Well, Yahoo cannot be ran while I'm at work. That leaves evening to night time slots for me, Eastern and Central US time. ---StarPilot
----
Online based yahoo can't be run, or computer based yahoo messenger?

''''We'''', In (This case) should represent [[WE]], because you and I are the 2 major (and possibly only) contributors on this subject. And ''''as I said before'''', anyone of the [[WE]] that wishes to come and represent themselves is fine. My goal of us getting together to discuss this is to SEE how even we should go about this, and to lay groundwork for a list of distinctions between Vandalsm and editorials that could be brought to a [[WikiPage]] to be elaborated on. --KenSchry

----
Yahoo messenger. Some IMs haven't been blacklisted yet, but Yahoo has for my workplace.

I'm curious about that list. How can we qualify it? This should be interesting. I haven't a clue about that at this time, so I'm curious to see what you have in mind. --StarPilot
*[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JimScarver/] isn't actually Yahoo Messenger, you log in online and use the chat in the group online.
----
What I'm suggesting is we quantify a list of offensible material (As you said [[StarPilot]], Warez/porno, Vandalism (Yes I know the [[VandalismVersusEditorial]] hasn't been sorted yet), and others. The need for thi has gone down though, so instead of trying to coordinate a chat, we could probably just do it here on a [[WikiPage]] at [[WikiWorld]]. --KenSchry
----
Sounds good to me. So what else are we over looking? We should be able to come up with at least the full list of ISP intolerably stuff that are no-no's. ---StarPilot
----
Hmm... now I see what you mean about how are we going to define it...tough.

A thing to do instead is if you see something YOU consider objectible, remove it, and if the person finds it removed he has a chance to appeal it (don't even ask that one... if you agree to the process we'll figure out an appeal system). Just an idea. --KenSchry

----
Isn't that what we have already? I make an entry about something, and if you think it is so bad or would get [[WikiWorld]] in trouble, you do what you think needs done. If I disagree, when I see that my item has been changed, I change it back? Or ask an Admin to restore it from backup?

In [[WikiWorld]], and real argument over the matter would be taken to [[WikiWorldCourt]]. For [[AnewGo]] material, it would go to [[AnewGoCourt]]. Yes?

So you are saying just keep what we have so far?

---StarPilot
----
Yes it's different. All your saying is that right now were pitting one persons beliefs of [[GoodAndEvil]] against another persons, the poster. What I'm suggesting is that we can possibly form a new section of [[WikiWorldCourt]], maybe [[WikiWorldCourtPageCouncil]] or so, and if a person feels that their page has been removed wrongly, they put there case up in front of the council, and it's a [[MajorityDecision]] whether that person is right or the remover is. --KenSchry
----
Ok, I seem to be missing a step in your logic. Why do we need to create a subset of [[WikiWorldCourt]] to be the authority on which version of the page (uneditted, non-deleted, whatever) is the proper one in the view of [[WikiWorld]]?

Maybe in the future, if we are lucky enough to have hundreds of [[WikiWorld]] participants, a smaller court for hearing appeals would be needed, but until then, I see no need for a special section. Can you please elaborate on why you think we need this?

---StarPilot
----
Why would we need this? Say theoretically, a person [[JoeSchmoe]] puts a page up on [[WikiWorld]] that I consider offensive, and I remove it. Then [[JoeSchmoe]] returns, finds his page deleted and reinstates in with a query for why did we remove his page? Under our old method all that would have happened was the page would keep being removed and being put back up, but you could never know because that particular sceenario has not happened yet. I'm suggesting in preparation for the future (as you said, we may grow in numbers), we form a council for that eventuality. --KenSchry

----
Ok, so what I understand you are saying is... you think that one day, [[WikiWorld]] will have a million active participants, so we need to form a council to deal with these issues now?

Well, in that case, just declare the subset of people on the [[WikiWorldPageCourt]] to be equal to all who are on the [[WikiWorldCourt]] until such time that the [[WikiWorldCourt]] decides all page changing matters should be filed in the [[WikiWorldPageCourt]] to allow the [[WikiWorldCourt]] to deal with other issues (What, I cannot image, as the only [[WikiWorld]] issues that should come up in [[WikiWorldCourt]] is [[WikiWorld]] usage matters, such as whether a page is appropriate, whether a poster is just troublesome rather then being a real participant, etc), and be done with it. With the clear delimination of power, of course, that any matter in [[WikiWorldPageCourt]] can be appealed to the [[WikiWorldCourt]] for final appeal. [[WikiWorldCourt]] is the highest shared authority of [[WikiWorld]], after all. (The higher, non-shared authorities being the admin, sysops, and host/providers, then the actual local, state, and federal authorities that hold sway over the real world locations of our servers and the posters access points.)

Does that settle the issue? This really strikes me as planning out the second self sustaining colony at Centauri, before we've even established the technology to stay outside our blue cradle of our home world yet.

We may be able to lay down some ''''guidelines'''' on what we think should happen if [[WikiWorld]] ever reaches that point of usage, but... remember, this is a cooperative site and community, where we go on being reasonable and (at a minimal, somewhat) civil to each other. If we cannot agree on that, then no ruling by any 'court' here will be considered binding on the individuals having their disagreement. If they CAN civilly resolve their differences, odds are against them needing to appeal to a mediating collection of [[WikiWorld]] via the [[WikiWorldCourt]], yes? They should be able to resolve it civilly anywhere in [[WikiWorld]] then, yah? These are my thoughts and opinions on this matter, at this time. Do you disagree?

Humm... do it now for some possible future need? Goes against the basic tenets of practicality that are featured in [[ExtremeProgramming]]. I wonder how Jim will react to that? :-)

---StarPilot
----
I never said 1 million, you did [[StarPilot]]. "Maybe in the future, if we are lucky enough to have hundreds of [[WikiWorld]] participants".

All your saying is what i said in the first place. I suggested we form some type of list for what is/isn't correct, you argued that that isn't necessary. I then proposed the [[WikiWorldPageCourt]] idea, you said that isn't necessary and lesser guidelines would be good.

I'm interested as to what your idea is, please elaborate [[StarPilot]]. --KenSchry

----
LOL==== You did say that you see a reason to break it out of [[WikiWorldCourt]] though, didn't you? I agree that ultimately, it will be up to the [[WikiWorldCourt]] of popular opinion on what is ok to the community.
====

However, I do not see how we can go any further then to state that the only true offensive page/contribution that is illegal here at [[WikiWorld]] is beyond the minimum that is imposed on us by our host ISP, and the RW laws that are binding on us from individually. Beyond that, is just an opinion of those that are currently participating, and they should be able to work out on their own whatever disagreement they may have between themselves, shouldn't they? That is part of the spirit of [[WikiWorld]]. I can see that a few individuals may have to go and get some outside mediators (WikiWorldCourt) to help them understand the other's points, but as nothing is truly permanent here (everything is editable by participants), then eventually, all other standards beyond the legal minimums can change during the lifetime of a page. So how can we set anything beyond that? I do not at this time see that we can.

---StarPilot
----
"How can we set a standard when the standard changes with every instant and every user?"

As you said before, setting guidelines.

Definition of guidelines: guide·line (gdln) n.
--A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action

If we set guidelines today, it would be the course of action for [[WikiWorld]] users in the future.

You know, this line might be fruitless, we may just have to wait for the problems in the future when they come. Iernos..... --KenSchry

Well, we might get to examine our first real "Use Case" of this issue, and use it to drive out our ideas on this matter. ---StarPilot
----
Not entirely. Pornography isn't [[FreedomOfExpression]], it's outlawed. You can't run through the streets streaking, or take your pants/shirt off in a movie theater.

But hey, we can see. It might drive this subject into a new light. --KenSchry

Actually, you can go running through the streets naked in many parts of the world. Not all [[SocialUnits]] in the world are so hung up on body modesty. Now, many places would like the luxury of being able to afford to be hung up on whether you got enough cloth covering your body, but they are still busy trying to find enough food for most of the people in their [[SocialUnits]].

Now, why isn't Pornography [[FreedomOfExpression]]? Because some view it as [[Art]], and others don't? Sure, most of it is dross... just semi-intelligent animals interested in getting their arousal going, or greedy intelligent animals taking advantage of the fact that other animals of their species will barter (money, goods, services, whatever) to get their arousals going, but still... its still expression, if only a base ones. And all Expressions, where not dangerous to the security of the Gov'Mint, is supposed to be protected. To outlaw an expression is to outlaw the thought, according to the US Supreme Court. ("Expression is the foundation of forming a thought", to be exact).

[[Art]], after all, is merely what moves people. Whether its in their heart, head, or pants. What moves is not as important as the fact that the audience empathisizes, that it experiences something. If a work of [[Art]] is not moving, it is merely trash. ---StarPilot
----
Yes... and at the same time, no. Pornography (In the sence of images for male/female arousal) being classified as art by the sole fact that they are pictures is incorrect. Pornographic objects can be art (Statues for a most part, and paintings), but not all is. This is still a qeustion of how far the boundaries of [[FreedomOFExpression]] lie, and what we consider that to be.

Every freedom and right faces this exact question. You have the [[FreedomOfSpeech]] to say what you want, and even express disapproval of your government, but that doesn't allow you to take that right and do other denouncments or lies (Such as standing up in a movie theater and yelling "Fire====", or starting a violent riot as a way of expressing disapproval of the government.[[Yes, I know that is not the way in all countries and governments, but you also have to remember in those countries that you can "Run through the streets naked" have differentiated Freedoms from America, [[FreedomOfExpression]] and [[FreedomOfSpeech]] included.]]) --KenSchry
====

LimitsToFreedomOfExpression - Revision history

imported>Import: Imported current content