User talk:Christine Bush/PseudonymPolicy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Christine Bush (Response to Peter Jackson re: helpful information with regard to process and discursive distinctions.) |
imported>Christine Bush (Added thoughts regarding cited example of enforcing discussion norms.) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:Hi Peter. I appreciate your pointing this out. I'm not surprised and appreciate this is far from a trivial suggestion. It will take time and may fail, but I am not convinced the current policy is well justified. If a Referendum on Pseudonymity did materialize and failed to pass, I still think it would have been worthwhile because it will have resulted in generating a more nuanced consideration for the existing policy. Going through the process should also result in a great article on the topic of [[pseudonymity]]. I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with you on it. ;-) | :Hi Peter. I appreciate your pointing this out. I'm not surprised and appreciate this is far from a trivial suggestion. It will take time and may fail, but I am not convinced the current policy is well justified. If a Referendum on Pseudonymity did materialize and failed to pass, I still think it would have been worthwhile because it will have resulted in generating a more nuanced consideration for the existing policy. Going through the process should also result in a great article on the topic of [[pseudonymity]]. I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with you on it. ;-) | ||
:I am familiar with the discourse on other wikis which is in large part why I value CZ. By "frank discussion" I am invoking something more akin to "civil discourse" than "flame wars." Going forward, I think I will actually make this distinction so thank you for pointing me in that direction. | :I am familiar with the discourse on other wikis which is in large part why I value CZ. By "frank discussion" I am invoking something more akin to "civil discourse" than "flame wars." Going forward, I think I will actually make this distinction so thank you for pointing me in that direction. The example of restricting discussion you've provided seems appropriate to me as the comment removed was inflammatory and unconstructive. (I trust it is transparent that failure to enforce similar personal attacks on the Forum have motivated recent decisions on my part.) | ||
:May I ask after your thoughts on the concept? [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC) | :May I ask after your thoughts on the concept? [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:22, 11 September 2014
You realize this would need a Charter amendment by referendum? (See Preamble and Article 2.) The Council can call a referendum, but so, at the next election, can any two Citizens.
Before the Charter there was provision for exceptions, but the drafting committee decided to abolish those. Maybe someone can find the discussions.
As to frank discussion, people often go to RationalWiki to avoid our restrictions. As example of how strict we can be, see [1]. Peter Jackson 10:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Peter. I appreciate your pointing this out. I'm not surprised and appreciate this is far from a trivial suggestion. It will take time and may fail, but I am not convinced the current policy is well justified. If a Referendum on Pseudonymity did materialize and failed to pass, I still think it would have been worthwhile because it will have resulted in generating a more nuanced consideration for the existing policy. Going through the process should also result in a great article on the topic of pseudonymity. I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with you on it. ;-)
- I am familiar with the discourse on other wikis which is in large part why I value CZ. By "frank discussion" I am invoking something more akin to "civil discourse" than "flame wars." Going forward, I think I will actually make this distinction so thank you for pointing me in that direction. The example of restricting discussion you've provided seems appropriate to me as the comment removed was inflammatory and unconstructive. (I trust it is transparent that failure to enforce similar personal attacks on the Forum have motivated recent decisions on my part.)
- May I ask after your thoughts on the concept? Christine Bush 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)