Wipkedia, Backlash, Mission Statement
clare, 12 Oct 2005 12:52:45
I note that people are debating whether to ask Wipkedia to remove the link to the Backlash website. I don't have a strong view either way, except that surely the more people that click to the wesbite the better - whatever their route?
However, I am a bit dismayed by talk of drafting something up that reflects what Backlash is about. A large number of people drafted, commented, analysed, compromised etc etc to produce the Mission Statement (now called "Backlash - Opposing censorship").
It is not yet on the website, but languishing on a writeboard in the cyber wilderness. It was intended to be and is a more complete summary of Backlash's position than the current entry on the website. It should be on the website now.
If not, what purpose does it serve? Do we really need to draft another position statement when we have one already that is not being used?
Would not posting the Mission Statement on the website increase the likelihood that someone writing a Wipkedia entry would know what the group stands for?
Would that not be likely to lead to a more positive entry, so that it would no longer be necessary to dissipate energy in asking Wipkedia to remove a publicity generating link?
*** This message has been edited by clare on 12 Oct 2005 12:59:15 ***
Chris, 12 Oct 2005 13:05:49
The concern about the link on the Jane Longhurst page is more to do with its
juxtaposition with the JLT tagline ("In Cyberspace no-one hears the children
crying ...start listening NOW"), and that we oppose their campaign, than the
link in itself. The location could be taken to imply that we oppose some
move to protect children - which is the main thrust of the Jane Longhurst
Trust website - this could be counterproductive. Also, we aren't opposing
JLT, we are opposing the Government proposals.
The reason for drafting something anew for Wikipedia is that entries need to
be factual and free of opinion and bias - the mission statement doesn't
quite cut it in this sense.
The mission statement definitely ought to go onto the website asap.
----Original Message Follows----
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 12 Oct 2005 13:05:49
I note that people are debating whether to ask Wipkedia to remove the link
to the Backlash website. I don't have a strong view either way, except that
surely the more people that click to the wesbite the better - whatever their
route?
However, I am a bit dismayed by talk of drafting something up that reflects
what Backlash is about. A large number of people drafted, commented,
analysed, compromised etc etc to produce the Mission Statement (now called
"Backlash - Opposing censorship").
It is not yet on the website, but languishing on a writeboard in the cyber
wilderness. It was intended to be and is a more complete summary of
Backlash's position than the current entry on the website. It should be on
the website now.
If not, what purpose does it serve? Do we really need to draft another
position statement when we have one already that is not being used?
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1232
demolitionred, 12 Oct 2005 13:06:47
a mission statement is not appropriate for a wipkedia entry.
The mission statement will go up on the website -- if complete --in the next coupls of days along with a number of updates.
It will also likely be used in press releases etc.
clare, 12 Oct 2005 13:18:06
Dem Red, I didn't suggest using the mission statement as the Wipkedia entry. Only that it should be on the website so that clickers from Wipkedia will read it. It has complete for quite a while.
Author wrote:
> a mission statement is not appropriate for a wipkedia entry.
> The mission statement will go up on the website -- if complete --in the next coupls of days along with a number of updates.
> It will also likely be used in press releases etc.
adrian, 12 Oct 2005 21:14:48
At 12:52 12/10/2005 +0100, pearl_maude1 wrote:
A large number of people drafted, commented, analysed, compromised etc etc
to produce the Mission Statement (now called "Backlash - Opposing
censorship").
>
>It is not yet on the website, but languishing on a writeboard in the cyber
wilderness. It was intended to be and is a more complete summary of
Backlash's position than the current entry on the website. It should be on
the website now.
>
>If not, what purpose does it serve? Do we really need to draft another
position statement when we have one already that is not being used?
>
No we don't. I too think the mission statement is ready or very close to.
Can we get that agreed or any loose ends tidied up? I'll be putting up the
leaflet text in the next day or two, which serves pretty well for now, but
the full mission statement should go up.
clare, 12 Oct 2005 21:19:25
Adrian, Last time we were debating the mission statement we reached agreement (or lack of objection) on everything, save any addition to be made as a result of a vote on the question of whether to condemn non-consesual acts etc. Snowdrop made the amendment that followed from that vote about a week ago, and Lothario has now uploaded the current final version as html and text on to the files section of this site.
Author wrote:
> At 12:52 12/10/2005 +0100, pearl_maude1 wrote:
> A large number of people drafted, commented, analysed, compromised etc etc
> to produce the Mission Statement (now called "Backlash - Opposing
> censorship").
> >
> >It is not yet on the website, but languishing on a writeboard in the cyber
> wilderness. It was intended to be and is a more complete summary of
> Backlash's position than the current entry on the website. It should be on
> the website now.
> >
> >If not, what purpose does it serve? Do we really need to draft another
> position statement when we have one already that is not being used?
> >
> No we don't. I too think the mission statement is ready or very close to.
> Can we get that agreed or any loose ends tidied up? I'll be putting up the
> leaflet text in the next day or two, which serves pretty well for now, but
> the full mission statement should go up.