couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lenz <>
Subject Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:10:56 GMT
interesting discussion with two entirely different angles of view. i did ISP
work and know about the pain filtering/censoring/how-ever-you-call-it causes
if you have to treat a large amount of customers and can not afford to be
liable for your actions (or missing actions). from that point of view there
is only the "we do not filter at all" statement that lets you survive. you
act only on court orders or you die.
the situation here is different, it is a product page and it is actively
edited by the community. after all it is a public wiki. if someone thinks
that it is not right, change it, cut out the link part and just leave the
wording, make a note, delete it and wait for the response of those entering
the links. it is public opinion.
i think that a product promotion page (thats what it is in fact) has a very
different purpose than a broadly available news site or the way ISPs deal
with content on their systems. i think if in doubt, delete the link and wait
for the reaction or change the link into a text only link to not push
traffic to pages that might not reflect the views of the majority of the

... just my 2 cents ...


On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Noah Slater <> wrote:

> Antony,
> Thanks for your explanation, and for highlighting the problems associated
> with
> moral arbitration. I can see what you're trying to say. However, I think
> you
> slightly misunderstood my email, I wrote:
> > I can think of the following problematic areas:
> I was not suggesting that all of the things I listed are immoral in some
> absolute sense of the word. I was suggesting that they may be problematic
> for us
> a project. Unfortunately, outgoing project links can be seen as
> endorsements,
> and we must be careful about them in that respect.
> I think that the links and content on our website should aim to be family
> friendly and work safe, as vague as that may be. I wasn't proposing a set
> of
> hard and fast rules for determining what is or isn't safe by these
> standards. As
> a community, we would have to judge each one on a case by case basis.
> That's essentially what this thread was meant to be about. What does the
> community think? Is this link okay or not?
> --
> Noah Slater,

painless domain registration (finally)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message