| Grex > Coop13 > #68: Potential censorship |
| response 29 of 393: | 
Jan 6 17:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 30 of 393: |
Jan 6 17:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 31 of 393: |
Jan 6 17:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 32 of 393: |
Jan 6 17:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 33 of 393: |
Jan 6 18:06 UTC 2004 |
I've long thought the general practice here on the deletion of text to be too strict. The "ownership" of a collaborative work is always murky. In the case of a conferencing item, the responses often are worthless without the text of the item that led to those responses. To remove large pieces of an item is to destroy its coherence. It makes no sense to me to leave anything behind. An item that is largely about one person's experience, and the reactions to that experience, seems to me to belong more to the person being described than to the person doing the describing. Prose, despite the poetry, is rarely deathless. Sooner or later, the medium it is recorded on disintegrates. Often, the disintegration is none too soon. Let it go.
| response 34 of 393: |
Jan 6 18:10 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 35 of 393: |
Jan 6 18:19 UTC 2004 |
Yes, Valerie did something the rest of us can't do. Yes, Grex has had a long standing policy that once you've posted something, youo can never change your mind about having it online. Fortunately, Grex members changed the policy a few years ago to allow you to scribble things you've changed your mind about so that they aren't publically available any more. Frankly, the things in her baby diary were things I'd m never put on the Web/Internet in the first place. And they involve personal informationo ab out people too young to have an opinon about what was being done/said. I wish we -all- had the authority to kill items we started. Let me mull that over, because it may be time for a member vote on a well-crafted version of that. The whining about free-speech is ludicrous. As has been explained, on a word for word percentage the content of those items was about 95% Valerie This whole bit has me thinking we should move toward MORE ability to censor items on Grex, not less!
| response 36 of 393: |
Jan 6 18:24 UTC 2004 |
I'd want to hear complaints from the people whose content was deleted, not the usual troublemakers like polytarp and jp2.
| response 37 of 393: |
Jan 6 18:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 38 of 393: |
Jan 6 18:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 39 of 393: |
Jan 6 18:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 40 of 393: |
Jan 6 18:36 UTC 2004 |
While I am a little surprised about valerie's feelings in this matter, I am not surprised that she wanted to remove the baby diaries. I mean, she has talked about a lot of very private things and I can totally understand that she might not want those lingering around here. Maybe it is time to revisit our censorship policy. Maybe making the author of the item the "owner" could have some advantages.
| response 41 of 393: |
Jan 6 18:58 UTC 2004 |
On what basis is it "wrong," jp2? I don't see it.
| response 42 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:00 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 43 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:06 UTC 2004 |
"Arbitrarily"? No. For good reason? Yes.
| response 44 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 45 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:14 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 46 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:21 UTC 2004 |
I feel that staff shouldn't be allowed to remove their personal items just because they no longer want them public unless the same ability is granted to everyone. I know there are probably items in old agoras that I'd prefer to go back and delete, but since I'm not a staff member that option isn't open to me.
| response 47 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:22 UTC 2004 |
(So I guess I agree with jp2 to the extent that I feel this was wrong, and that valerie should, at very least, get a stern "don't do that again." I'm not willing to call for her resignation; I see this as an isolated incident and not a pattern of abuse of staff powers.)
| response 48 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 49 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:23 UTC 2004 |
I actually doubt that. But it would probably depend on what staff member you asked.
| response 50 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
| response 51 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:57 UTC 2004 |
I'm not stupid. :(
| response 52 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:58 UTC 2004 |
>#36 of 50 by Scott Helmke (scott) on Tue Jan 6 13:24:39 2004: >I'd want to hear complaints from the people whose content was >deleted, not the usual troublemakers like polytarp and jp2. I resent having my posts deleted. While I can understand why Valerie did what she did, it's not like she didn't have an alternative to just nuking the complete items. There were a large number of side-discussions, like any other item on grex, that could be pretty beneficial to the community. And it's not like she knew it wasn't allowed. She did try to delete them as herself, but when that didn't work.. out came the magic staff powers. Nice work.
| response 53 of 393: |
Jan 6 19:59 UTC 2004 |
Funny, all the evidence I've seen points to the contrary. You're welcome to attempt to provide some counter evidence, but I doubt you're up to the challenge.