Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can
do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock
can do whatever he pleases? The end result is the
same either way, since I see your actions and my
actions as morally equal. Just so there is no doubt,
here is what I am saying:
* Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
right to restrain him.
* Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
right to restrain him.
* Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act
to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
* Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will
act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
Paraphrasing a private email I had with another
wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house
smashing my car window then I am going to go outside
and use force to stop them. What I'm not going to do
is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any
way, or that I had some "right" to stop them. I'm
simply using my ability to project force to enforce my
will over them.
First regarding the logical argument that seems
to be in progress:
I agree with both Ed and TMC that our rules, customs
and application of force to enforce them are currently
ill defined, sporadically and inconsistently applied.
Second on a practical note:
Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock
in use as accounts names and spread throughout the
Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of
the database and site for a lot of potential users.
Specific example: A few months ago I was looking forward
to coaching some nieces and nephews in some composition
efforts collaboratively here. IMHO Since most of my extended
family and better educated friends believe kids/minors should
learn to function in polite society first (by example) and pick
up gutter slang as appropriate later; the lack of effective
well defined customs and consistent enforcement against all
(yes even founders, moderators, nonmembers of the nonexistent
cabal or elite, newbies, and other special people in self
defined categories) severely compromises the utility
of the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and its ability to
attract and help train future effective Wikipedians.
The above should not be construed as advocating censorship
in the articles. Merely opposing the use of loopholes in our
system structure to spread graffiti, taunts, etc. potentially
offensive to large groups of people.
Regards,
Mike Irwin