Redefining position toward Domas
As Domas made clear what did he think with his position toward explicit sexual content, I am glad to redefine my position toward his candidature. Here is the overview of his and my positions and our communication:
Domas’ answer to the question:
Though better media tagging in general could allow better content repositories in multiple senses, we should discourage shocking juxtapositions, and always try to place information where appropriate. Though inclusion of various content is usually subject to community guidelines, it would be community action to use any implemented tagging or filtering measures.Wikipedia and other projects by itself are not that shocking, and one has to research and dig to get into problematic material – so this may seem bigger issue only after considerable time investment into it.
On the other hand, I believe that in lots of adult topics, Wikipedia can be way milder and neutral, than most of other internet media around. There’re always at least 5 entries of adult topics in our top-100 most visited articles, and we rank highest on search engines for lots of adult keywords. Once we look at that context, information we carry is needed, educational and way better than the surrounding environment. Being compendiums of knowledge, our projects do great job, and instead of running away from the audience interest, we should just always try to do better job on how we structure our information or media.
Something what can be shocking juxtaposition in one case, can be something needed and useful in another – and balancing at that is one of many issues we have to solve.
My position toward Domas and according to this answer was:
The next candidate about whom I was thinking is Domas. I would give to him 2 because he is a MediaWiki contributor for a long time. … Domas and Beauford Anton Stenberg want to have balanced censorship. So, they’ve got balanced 50.
Domas stated that I misunderstood him:
milosh, it was interesting to see my position on “having information shown where appropriate” as censorship. the current problem is that content gets tagged in interesting ways, including fetish or exhibitionist images in generic categories.
it isn’t censorship, it is question of classification – and I already said, it is better us carrying that information, than others, for people who search for it.
is that censorship?
After which I asked him to define more precisely his position:
The problem with “the rest of you” (except four candidates which I mentioned) is that I don’t know a lot about your positions and that I am reading what did you write there (as well as a lot of voters are doing that).
I’ve read your answer again.
* The context of the question is very clear: One person who tried a couple of times to *censor* Wikipedia asked the question and you are aware of that.
* You haven’t stated anything in relation to censorship.
* You didn’t define what “shocking pictures” are for you.
* So, when you are talking about them in this context, I am reading that “shocking pictures” for you are photos which present anal sex in the article about anal sex. And if it is so, it is a censorship.
If it is not your position, you should explain your position better (in your answer). There are enough of time for other voters. Also, I’ll write another blog post about your position (and correct this one).
And, he made it 😛
well, my position actually enforces having ‘anal sex’ images in ‘anal sex’ articles. what I suggest, is that the community should always take best effort to avoid shocking juxta-positions (e.g. consider gray areas in should anal sex image be in sex article? and obvious ones – leather fetishists shouldn’t be in “leather” article
As he made it and I am happy with that, I am defaulting back to supporting him as the best option after my favorite candidates. His position is similar to the position of Adam Koenigsberg, but Domas did a lot in the development of MediaWiki. As Ting stated, it is important to have one MediaWiki developer at the Board. At the other side, I am not as satisfied with his previous involvement at the Board as I am satisfied with Ting’s and Kate’s. That means that I wouldn’t be perfectly happy with him at the Board instead of my preferred candidates, but, also, I wouldn’t be unhappy, too.
My vote can’t be changed (or I think so; I should check it with folk from Electoral committee), but I think that you should consider him as a serious candidate, too.