From Flu Wiki 2

Forum: Ask Questions of the Moderators Here XVIII

04 November 2006

DemFromCTat 13:02

New thread, old one long. Older thread is here

uk bird – at 13:12

Mmm, let’s see. High fever, verbal diarrhoea, blood on the floor, racing heartbeats, rambling speech… I think the Fluwiki’s got BIRD FLU!

Goju – at 13:15

LOL

anon_22 – at 13:32

LOL here as well!

under the radar – at 13:34

KimT at 13:10 - “…We ARE trying to save the world or just our own neighborhoods. How many of us have walked away dejected, amazed that other people are not seeing what we so clearly see. …”

What we so clearly see? Save the world? Let us save ourselves.

http://tinyurl.com/y7nsne http://tinyurl.com/y8l72p http://tinyurl.com/y3qp7z

DemFromCTat 13:37

under the radar – at 13:34

Please, I know it’s important, but no politics here. I beg you. ;-(

OTOH, I know a site or two you can visit…

under the radar – at 13:39

DemFromCT at 13:37 - I know, sorry. Anyone who’s reading, the moderators are not responsible for anything posted on this site. :)

c3jmp – at 13:40

diana – at 13:05

anything sensitive. what is sensitive varies by who is interested. discussing that aspect in depth really is counter productive - enumerating what might trip a filter in cleartext has a bad way of tripping a filter if you’re right. my only point in posting is that it’s not necessarily about agreeing (or not) with the policy or politics - it’s about getting the information out to the most people. and posting the wrong text may have very bad effects for other people - because they may lose access to the site. i am American, and i value free speech - but there are other places to discuss those concerns, regardless how strongly i feel - a site that exists to disseminate and analyze information regarding an impending health threat is not among those places. if i vent here, and feel better personally - and it gets this site banned on a router - how many lives did i take?

diana – at 13:42

Very interesting. Byzantine almost.

enza – at 13:44

Yup, FW is ‘high hot and breathless’.

It’s maybe dengue?

KimTat 13:44

under the radar – at 13:34

Like I said. I am naive.

diana – at 13:46

You make it sound more like a music video on MTV.A bit like Shakira in “These Hips Don’t Lie”.

under the radar – at 14:09

By the way, my post was a warning, as a kindness to those who who may not be aware. Take it as you will. Am I afraid? Yes. So I will say no more about it. And I am most definitely not a tin foil hat head, in case you may wonder.

KimTat 14:10

under the radar – at 14:09

I was unaware—I’m posting this to my blog too. Thanks!!!

diana – at 14:25

I glanced at the site. Talking with someone. We were hashing over politics and other matters as he is much older than I. His remark. “It will only take one stroke of the pen to change the constitution.” While we shouldn’t discuss our politics here, to disreguard them is perilous. Thanks, under the radar.

under the radar – at 14:41

All true.

Bronco Bill – at 15:23

Wow!!

Watching in Texas – at 15:26

ditto

Scaredy Cat – at 15:47

So what is the reason for the censoring? Is it because, as anon_22 herself originally said:

It was deleted for inappropriate content.

Speculations about conspiracy theories concerning the Chinese government is the fastest one-way ticket to get this site banned for anyone trying to read it from inside their jurisdiction. Please keep comments on this forum non-emotive and non-conspiratorial.

or is it because talking openly about China somehow puts anon_22 or her family members at risk?

I’ve looked back over much of the preceding discussion, and unless I’ve missed something, the first mention of risk to anon_22 or her family was not made by anon_22 at all, but, later, by Anon_451 on Nov. 2 at 22:18 where he said:

…we must remember that at least one of our number must travel to the country in question from time to time and we may be placing her at risk for her personal safety.

And, as an aside, if this is the case, if open discussion here does place anon_22 or any of her loved ones at risk due to her role as Flu Wiki moderator, then I think that does constitute a conflict of interest, one which places a muzzle on the rest of us, thereby potentially contributing to a 1918-type situation where people are further endangered due to the lack of access to the truth.

Scaredy Cat – at 15:56

DemFromCT – at 11:24 -

Bird Guano

It isn’t just a concern for anon_22. it’s a larger question of where we want to positon Flu Wiki - partner, antagonist, somewhere in the middle. Not just for China, not just for the US, but for any govenment and also whether the ‘partner’ is the citizens of these countries. The answer may be that, fine, but we do what we do, with a disclaimer at the top that says “this is individual opinion only”.

Gosh, I would hope you would want Flu Wiki to remain (?) independent, neither partner, nor antagonist, not even somewhere in the middle. Just reporting and analying the facts (as best we can determine) to the best of our abilities. Something along the lines of investigative journalism (as Monotreme mentioned), going where the facts take us, not determining our route in advance.

Speedbump – at 15:56

I was hesitant to chime in, but I agree with Scardy Cat.

Unfortunate as it may be to Anon22, the rest of the world should not be censored because of her CHOICE to be a moderator here.

Clawdia – at 15:57

I’m confused.

mojo – at 16:01

I’ll throw in my opinion. I don’t think talking about conspiracy theories (esp without hard facts) re China will make one whit of difference on the progress of the virus or it’s effect on us. It may however, endanger some of our members and possibly cut off some avenues of info from lurkers in China if we have any. I am not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face. YMMV As far as the name of the flu, the media has already dubbed it “bird flu” and I have an idea that that has already stuck in peoples minds.

anon_22 – at 16:08

Scaredy Cat,

The reason that I posted for ‘deleting’ the thread was also a valid reason, but a secondary one. My initial choice was to cover the primary issue privately with Monotreme, with the email copied to other mods. There was not one moment when Monotreme did not know both reasons.

I had no wish to uncover all of my personal affairs online. I would have preferred that Monotreme debated this with me offline, to preserve my privacy. It didn’t happen. I was eventually pushed to say all those things here, far beyond what I normally would have wanted to do.

There are reasons why most people choose on this forum to not use their real names, As far as I know there are less than a handful who do. It is not an easy decision to make. I do not submit that the degree of my privacy or personal sacrifice needs to be judged by everyone. I would submit that it is sufficient to judge my actions by the consequences and the reasons now given.

anon_22 – at 16:11

Speedbump – at 15:56

May I respectfully ask that you read at least the lower 2/3 of the previous thread before you make a comment, if you haven’t done so already? If you have, then thank you for your comment.

anon_22 – at 16:12

Clawdia, if you are confused, see my 16:11 suggestion.

anon_22 – at 16:15

In addition, to preserve my privacy, since this discussion has gone through so much of my personal affairs, I reserve the right to take certain posts offline after a suitable timeframe.

Clawdia – at 16:17

Thanks - I’ve been catching up on my reading . . .

I’d been away for most of the past week - surprised to come back to FW and find turmoil here.

Scaredy Cat – at 16:24

anon_22 at 12:18 -

I believe it is possible to say everything that Monotreme is trying to say without accusations implying deliberate intent to harm, which is what the word ‘conspiracy’ means in the Chinese language. If this was a mistake of understanding, then I will respectfully ask you to use a different way of expressing your ideas.

Comment -

I don’t think Monotreme said or implied anything about “deliberate intent to harm.”

from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

con?spire?

1. to agree together, esp. secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king.
2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal.
The above definition says nothing of intent to harm. While such an extra meaning may be implied in the Chinese language word for “conspiracy,” that is not the language spoken here, so should not be our concern.

I apologise for ‘deleting’ the thread on the day that it happened. I put the word ‘deleted’ in quotes because I did not delete it, I saved it so I could discuss it with the other mods. However, since the way to take a thread offline is to use the word ‘delete’ I used that word in the post as well without thinking it might be erroneous. I do again apologise.

Comment - Regardless of intention, the thread in question was, in fact, deleted. It was only initially resurrected (minus all of Monotreme’s and others’ comments) when I backtracked to the thread and posted a comment.

So perhaps I shouldn’t have ‘deleted’ the thread, maybe I should have just ‘closed’ it. Notice though that it is in the mod’s perogative to close or delete threads, but I concede that maybe I could have just closed it while waiting to consult with the other mods.

Comment - Or you could have left the thread open and simply added your comments and concerns.

anon_22 – at 12:31

Here’s the bottomline, for me, since we have arrived at this spot, which I was most reluctant to get to, publicly.

Someone writes up some conspiracy theory, and he’s ok cos he’s safe, and I have to take the heat.

Well, if that’s what comes with being a mod, it better be a conspiracy theory that I also believe in, cos I’m not willing to be martyr to someone else’s cause, thank you very much.

Comment - I think you are taking the heat here only because you summarily deleted his thread. If you had left it open, and added your comments, Monotreme would have had the opportunity to lay out his case, an opportunity lost due to the aforementioned action.

Scaredy Cat – at 16:28

anon_22 at 16:08 -

I had no wish to uncover all of my personal affairs online. I would have preferred that Monotreme debated this with me offline, to preserve my privacy. It didn’t happen. I was eventually pushed to say all those things here, far beyond what I normally would have wanted to do.

Excuse me, anon_22, but you were the one who brought up private matters first by discussing your e-mail exchange with Monotreme. I believe you implied he was inconsiderate, rude. Don’t want to take the time to find the exact quote right now. But I do know that at the time I thought it was very inappropriate for such a matter to be aired in this forum.

I think Monotreme was only responding to your accusations.

anon_22 – at 16:29

Scaredy Cat,

I have said all i want to say about ‘deleting’ the thread. You can speculate however way you want, it’s not going to change anything.

If Monotreme did not intend to imply any ‘deliberate intent to harm’, then its very simple. As I said, he is welcome to start another thread and re-phrase it so it won’t give that impression.

He knows that. I am still waiting to see if he chooses to do that.

Monotreme has been a valued contributor. Those of you who have been on this forum for a long time will recall all the different times when I have expressed complete confidence in his competence, intelligence and integrity. I have no wish to drive hime away. The problem is very straight-forward, so is the solution, and I will not repeat it here.

anon_22 – at 16:32

Scaredy Cat, by engaging in this ‘you said, he said’ approach, what are you trying to achieve? What are you trying to prove?

As a moderator, I am going to ask this one question, the bottomline is this:

I am asking that participants take due care when writing up certain topics. If you agree, we’re fine. If you do not, well, then there is nothing I can do about it.

You have not earned the right to judge my character, so quit it.

under the radar – at 17:06

Scaredy Cat, I know you mean well, but I can tell that you don’t have a full grasp of the situation.

Anon_22, if I were you I would not respond to any more postings about this matter, and I would already be busy deleting my posts.

anon_22 – at 17:08

under the radar – at 17:06

You’re right. I’ve covered everything that I want to cover, and I’m going to bed.

DennisCat 17:19

anon_22 – at 17:08 you may want to adjust your “profile”.

Scaredy Cat – at 17:24

anon_22 at 16:32 -

‘’Scaredy Cat, by engaging in this ‘you said, he said’ approach…”

Comment - I would really rather not engage in this “you said, he said” approach. But anon_22 brought her and Monotreme’s private e-mail conversations onto this thread, making them relevant for discussion.

I am asking that participants take due care when writing up certain topics.

Comment - Begging the question. Above statement assumes that participants are not taking “due care.” I don’t think that’s true at all (and who here would be assigned judge of someone else’s conscientiousness?).

As to what I am trying to achieve?

Well, two things motivate me to write this.

One, I am strongly opposed to the censorship. And, two, I’m trying to correct the distortions. My intention is not to insult anyone; I just want the record to reflect the truth.

Speedbump – at 17:27

Or just apologize for the heavy handedness and move on.

Jeeze.

Scaredy Cat – at 17:32

under the radar – at 17:06

Scaredy Cat, I know you mean well, but I can tell that you don’t have a full grasp of the situation.

You know, I keep thinking I’m done writing on this thread (embarrassed to admit I’m still in my pajamas). But then I read something like the above.

I don’t know if I do or do not have a “full” grasp of the situation. I guess I’d be just as likely to, though, as anyone else. Been reading FW threads for almost (or now over) a year.

But that doesn’t matter. Anyone here, no matter the education, no matter the background, no matter the time spent perusing Flu Wiki threads, has the utter right to post on any thread that they choose. I respect anon_22′s obvious intelligence, experience, eloquence. There is much to admire. However we are all equals here, different strengths yes, and every statement we make is open to challenge. As DemFromCT says (and I hope I am understanding him right) this is a feature of Flu Wiki, not a bug.

DemFromCTat 17:33

SC, you’ve been clear about your view of censorship. Since in a previous thread there was an apology for pulling it (though the right is reserved), and the thread was placed back in its entirety, please keep that in perspective.

There will be times the mods close threads. That’s not up for debate.

Gosh, I would hope you would want Flu Wiki to remain (?) independent, neither partner, nor antagonist, not even somewhere in the middle. Just reporting and analying the facts (as best we can determine) to the best of our abilities.

A middle course seems best, but I have no objections to partnering with anyone if it would save lives. I’d just have to be convinced (and convincing) that it would.

DemFromCTat 17:34

As DemFromCT says (and I hope I am understanding him right) this is a feature of Flu Wiki, not a bug.

You got that right. Exactly right, in fact. ;-)

Scaredy Cat – at 17:40

Dem,

Unless I have misinterpreted things, mods did not initially admit to pulling the thread (it was resurrected when I backtracked and then posted to it). But I do appreciate that you undeleted it. You did not re-open it however.

If you partner with anyone let us know, please. Then we can better judge the slant of the place.

Here’s to Flu Wiki’s best feature. ;-)

diana – at 17:54

SCAREDY CAT/ I too share a concern if threads are deleted. But going over and over the same territory isn’t going to change what has happened. Monetreme intends to start his own blog. If he returns to post or not is his choice. I don’t think much of playing fast and loose with a censors pen. If Anon 22 is concerned over her, safety while traveling, or her family in Hong Kong, she has her rational, but is hindered in her role. . It’s out in the open.Something has happened here that is important. You always will be a seeker of truth, yet it is time to let it pass. It isn’t up to us. The wiki shouldn’t carry this like some ball and chain. Its between two intelligent and valuable posters..

janetn – at 18:11

Isnt it time to move on. This has been discussed to death. I dont see any point in revisiting the same points over and over. People are just getting angry and this is all escalating again. Time to put this to bed, please!

DemFromCTat 18:24

i don’t see anyone getting angry or seeing it escalate, but I’m okay with moving on. ;-)

Bronco Bill – at 22:03

Disclaimer is good. Perhaps wording it with “We ask only that their be no political or religious posts, out of deference to all who visit.” between issues would be greatly appreciated. and ‘The complete Forum Rules are here’‘. Something along those lines…

Just a thought to add to the cacophony…

DemFromCTat 23:22

We’ll leave it as is for now. That’s a thought to consider, though.

05 November 2006

DemFromCTat 11:58

new thread, lest folks feel obligated to restrict questions to what’s on the page.

Retrieved from http://www.fluwikie2.com/index.php?n=Forum.AskQuestionsOfTheModeratorsHereXVIII
Page last modified on November 05, 2006, at 11:58 AM