linkspam_mod: A metal chain (Default)
[personal profile] linkspam_mod posting in [community profile] linkspam
Several areas of concern regarding the issue of warnings have led to this post.

One: The process of reading lengthy threads in multiple intersectional discussions has proven to be complicated and exhausting. Because of the inherent subjectivity of warnings, deciding when to apply them is a difficult and lengthy process for the linkspam mods. We realize that offering full and ideal warnings may be a task beyond our current capacities and therefore wonder whether it would be preferable to cease warning altogether if our current warnings system proves to be unacceptable.

Two: We have received several comments requesting us to rethink our warnings policy/practices. Requests for ending the practice exist alongside requests to expand the range of things we warn for.

We understand our warnings have been inconsistent, and we have been discussing that, as well as the nature of what to warn for. Since no single Linkspam post is the work of one person (in most cases, three-five people participate), a certain inconsistency may be inevitable.

Our philosophy is that we are not aiming for objectivity. We know we will fail which is why we welcome feedback. As a result of the recent feedback we have received, we are opening up this thread to solicit reader commentary on the issue of warnings.

1. Comment settings will allow anonymous comments.
2. All comments are screened
3. Comments will be unscreened as long as they are not derailing, abusive or off-topic (unless poster requests the comment remain screened).

We would especially appreciate feedback on the following, but of course you are free to respond on any issue.

1. Should Linkspam continue warnings?
2. What kind of warnings are most helpful? Least helpful?
3. If you believe we should offer warnings, how important are they for you?


ETA: When we say we're not objective, we don't mean we allow our personal dislike of a poster to cloud our judgement. In fact, we (as a matter of policy) recuse ourselves from warning when we've a personal history with the poster, or when our personal opinion of zie has become too entangled for us to be neutral. What we mean is that we will always try to be on the side of anti-oppression, and that we try to see issues under that light before any others. Us not being objective is to be taken in context of the usual emphasis on objectivity for journalists, and criticisms we have received pointing out that warning was 'editorialising'.' /ETA

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 09:55 pm (UTC)
copracat: John from SGA, facedown in a field with text '*fieldplant*' (john fieldplant)
From: [personal profile] copracat
To me, linkspam is a bit like a kinkfest meme or a hurt/comfort ficathon: the nature of the exercise means that things are going to come up that readers/viewers might want warnings for: the nature of the exercise is a warning, just a fairly broad one. Privilege and derailing are par for the course.

That said, I support a warning system if you and linkspam readers can nut out something useful and workable. I got no helpful ideas!

Thanks for the hard work.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 09:59 pm (UTC)
susanna: (Default)
From: [personal profile] susanna
I read the warnings rather as a comment from your side, telling us, the subscribers of linkspam, what you think of the posts you are linking too, and which posts you think problematic. As such they are interesting to me.

But I cannot speak for people who really might need warnings for various reasons.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 11:15 pm (UTC)
dashakay: (trek- uhura in a turtleneck)
From: [personal profile] dashakay
Yes, that's how it take the warnings, too. More as commentary than anything else.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 10:03 pm (UTC)
gloss: the avatar is unconvinced (Aang fed up)
From: [personal profile] gloss
I have found the mods' warnings to be more consistent than anyone might have reasonably expected. They are quite useful to me, in two main ways: first, as true warnings that enable me to choose whether to read something potentially harmful or avoid it, and, second, as educational/enlightening tools that help me hone my own critical faculties.

The only instance that I can think of where a warning was, to my eyes, warranted but was missing, was the recent "We're not sleazy, we're drag queens" post, as well as the post that inspired it. Some warning for straight privilege and deliberate Othering would have been helpful.

I would be really pleased if Linkspam continued to warn. The most helpful ones to me are concern white privilege, straight privilege, heteronormativity, ableism, and cisgender privilege: the usual nasty dominantarian suspects, really. Less helpful to me would be ones where...I don't know how to describe what they are. "Queer policing", frex. Intragroup disputes, where the group itself remains oppressed, seem less helpfully warned for in an anti-oppression effort. I think?

I understand, however, that the work needed to read, analyze and then label the links' contents must be exhausting. Given that, I'm not sure I'm comfortable asking you all to continue to warn. But I *am* grateful you have been warning.

eta okay, on reflection, I had more to say -- I think that the warnings/commentaries aid the anti-oppression effort in that they make visible problematic content that all too often can go unseen or easily ignored.
Edited (I can't shut up) Date: 2010-01-30 10:45 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 12:00 am (UTC)
tree: a figure clothed in or emerging from bark (Default)
From: [personal profile] tree
well said. i agree.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] bell - Date: 2010-01-31 02:41 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] dharma_slut - Date: 2010-01-31 06:24 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sashajwolf - Date: 2010-01-31 09:04 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 10:06 pm (UTC)
ext_58378: proof of bisexuality by taking the integral of sex over the entire line (Default)
From: [identity profile] maryaminx.livejournal.com
I like the warning system pretty much as-is. I don't expect warnings for comments; they are usually not the responsibility of the OP and it would be impossible to continuously monitor them. Privilege, -isms/phobias, and standard trigger warnings are what I'd like to keep seeing. "Problematic" is useful in helping me keep my sanity but obviously it's very subjective.

If a comment thread in a post goes off the deep end, though, it would be helpful for the persons following the post to drop a comment which the mods could add to the linkpost.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 10:21 pm (UTC)
dunmurderin: A clownfish, orange and white, with a banner saying he is NOT a Combaticon!  So no one mistakes him for one, y'know? (Default)
From: [personal profile] dunmurderin
If you're not aiming for objectivity, then your warnings really aren't necessarily helpful since I don't know if a warning is there because a person objectively thinks the post deserves it or because they're using this as a chance to get a dig in at the author. Perhaps a blanket warning for each collection would be best? Something to the effect that the collection posts may contain links to potentially triggering and/or painful materials? That warns potential readers that they might not be entering into a safe place if they follow any of the links.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 10:38 pm (UTC)
lexin: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lexin
I'm with this suggestion, I'd find it most helpful.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] gloss - Date: 2010-01-30 10:39 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] dunmurderin - Date: 2010-01-31 12:50 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] gloss - Date: 2010-01-31 01:29 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] katesnotes - Date: 2010-01-30 10:58 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] dunmurderin - Date: 2010-01-31 01:07 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] dharma_slut - Date: 2010-01-31 05:22 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] tree - Date: 2010-01-30 11:58 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] trobadora - Date: 2010-01-31 01:15 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] dunmurderin - Date: 2010-01-31 12:25 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] trobadora - Date: 2010-01-31 03:02 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sashajwolf - Date: 2010-01-31 09:05 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] mruk - Date: 2010-01-31 10:59 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] lotesse - Date: 2010-02-03 05:42 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 10:22 pm (UTC)
lian: Klavier Gavin, golden boy (Default)
From: [personal profile] lian
first off, disclaimer -- I'm biased in that I'm privileged along enough lines to not *require* extensive warnings.

That said, I agree with [personal profile] copracat that Linkspam itself is a contextual warning, so I always expect that I may be upset by the contents.

I don't have any issues with the warnings per se, except that warning for comments, while laudable, sounds like a recipe for burnout.

Also, the warnings denote value judgements on behalf of the compiler collective to me. That makes them pretty interesting, but also non-essential for me, because I can form my own opinion of the piece.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 11:42 pm (UTC)
dharma_slut: They call me Mister CottonTail (Default)
From: [personal profile] dharma_slut
I feel that the warnings are becoming more and more kneejerk and judgmental. I am not blaming you guys for this, but I am protesting it.

It's a fine line; subjectivity and activism? Or archive?

I think a dispassionate checklist of topics and/or viewpoints within the original post might be a valuable aid. Thus, when someone speaks from a heteronormative veiwpoint to discuss female status issues without acknowledging interracial complexities, you can simply note that, instead of labeling the whole as "Straight White privilege."

As for the comments-- if I came across an unproblematic discussion, THAT would be worth mentioning!

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 11:53 pm (UTC)
gloss: (Toro's flaming crotch)
From: [personal profile] gloss
It's a fine line; subjectivity and activism? Or archive?
I think this is a false opposition.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] feuervogel - Date: 2010-01-30 11:57 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sashajwolf - Date: 2010-01-31 09:07 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 11:56 pm (UTC)
cofax7: climbing on an abbey wall  (Default)
From: [personal profile] cofax7
I think you should stop giving warnings, or limit them to only marking a really offensive original post with, say, rape imagery or abusive language. It's kind of impossible to keep a link post updated if the comments get ugly or the OP gets defensive, and I also think it requires too much discretion of the Linkspam posters to do the labels. Most subscribers here, after all, know that this type of discussion can go off the rails.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-30 11:59 pm (UTC)
elf: Pie chart with question mark (Pie Chart of Fail)
From: [personal profile] elf
Warnings for privilege seem reasonable; warnings for derailing seem problematic, esp if those posts are in individual rather than community journals. The individual isn't necessarily intending to take part in a group discussion, and an off-topic tangent is not "derailing" just because it would be derailing if it were taking place in a different blog.

(If women are talking about rape statistics, and someone pipes up with "what about the guys whose lives are ruined by false accusations," that's derailing. If he takes it to his own journal and rants about it, it's not; he's not insisting people pay attention to his comments instead of theirs. It's still privilege-laden, but it's not derailing, IMHO, unless he's telling people to go interfere with the discussion elsewhere.)

I suspect that, on a topic with less intersectionality than the current slash debates, some warnings will be read as personal attacks, with followup wank. (I suspect that some already have been, but the warnings haven't been mostly confined to any one particular aspect of discussion, which may help.) How to balance the desire to warn people vs the potential countermove of locked posts that disappear from the discussion is one of the issues you have to deal with. (There's going to be locked posts no matter what you do. But tagging something as "privileged" is likely, once LS is better-known, to trigger an immediate lockdown.)

I'm not sure if comments should be warned for. Obviously, Linkspam won't warn for any aspect of privilege or derailing in comments that comes up after the link is made, an I wouldn't expect the mods to go back & edit to add that. So only those posts whose *early* comments are problematic will get warnings, and that seems somehow unfair.

I like the practice of warning for triggery topics. I like warning for "problematic" even if you don't have the energy to sort out exactly what flavor of problematic it is.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 07:01 am (UTC)
holyschist: Image of a medieval crocodile from Herodotus, eating a person, with the caption "om nom nom" (Default)
From: [personal profile] holyschist
I agree wrt to privilege vs derailing.

I'm not sure about comment warning, either, for the same reasons.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 12:12 am (UTC)
troisroyaumes: Painting of a duck, with the hanzi for "summer" in the top left (Default)
From: [personal profile] troisroyaumes
For what it's worth, I've appreciated the warnings for privilege: in cases where I belong to the privileged group, it's made me look more critically at the post/comments, and in cases where I don't, it's provided me with a chance to get some mental armor on before wading in (or allowed me in some cases to make the decision to avoid). I found the latter especially important because reading through defenses of privilege can be really painful and upsetting for me in a very personal way, and getting that chance to prepare myself has considerably reduced my anxiety about reading [community profile] linkspam posts. I realize that you can't warn for everything, and I certainly don't oppose your deciding to stop warning if it becomes too difficult, but I wanted to say that the warnings did in fact serve a useful purpose.

ETA: Or in other words, what [personal profile] gloss said above!
Edited Date: 2010-01-31 12:16 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 01:20 am (UTC)
trobadora: (Default)
From: [personal profile] trobadora
This is pretty much my take on it as well, and I hope we can keep the warnings.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 12:48 am (UTC)
wistfuljane: mr. incredible in a shirt & tie looking blank with an unhappy smiley face in the background (blank)
From: [personal profile] wistfuljane
I'm commenting in a new thread because I don't want to debate someone else's opinion, just want to add my own opinion. If [community profile] linkspam plans to continue to warn for derailing, please consider not limiting those warnings to "off-topic tangent" (e.g. derailing posts made outside the original post by another individual in their own journal space). I find this hard to articulate, but off-topic tangents have been known to have hurtful and harmful effects. Not only do they often add to the level of white noise or drown out the voices of the marginalized, but they also often co-opt the conversation to the posters' own agenda and just -- it doesn't matter the intention or space, if they have an effect on the overall conversation, they are part of the conversation and are derailing. Exempting them is to dismiss/decrease their effects and I can't express how troubling that is for me, especially with Race Fail '09 still fresh in my mind.
Edited (add "decrease") Date: 2010-01-31 12:57 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 01:29 am (UTC)
gloss: (Dick/Roy - UST in short pants)
From: [personal profile] gloss
it doesn't matter the intention or space, if they have an effect on the overall conversation, they are part of the conversation and are derailing
I think this is really well-said.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] amadi - Date: 2010-02-03 09:53 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] gloss - Date: 2010-02-03 10:07 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] merricatk.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-02-04 12:26 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] gloss - Date: 2010-02-04 12:31 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] merricatk.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-02-04 01:30 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 01:40 am (UTC)
tesserae: white poppies in the sun (Default)
From: [personal profile] tesserae
As someone who really appreciates the work you do collecting all thse links, I have to say that expecting you to read each comment thread closely enough to post warnings that extend to comments seems unrealistic and ultimately unsustainable. As well, once the posts are publicly linked, problematic content in either the posts or the commnts gets highlighted and discussed by the participants - which, issues of triggers aside, seems to me to fulfill the educational purpose some of the commenters here have note as useful in the warnings.

For myself, I'd prefer not to have the warnings, especially if the effort of doing so means that mods burn out faster *or* if it leads to people thinking a comment thread doesn't need warnings on the first day is going to stay a safe space. Discussions can deteriorate fast, and it seems to me that expecting mods to update warnings is really unreasonable - rendering the whole concept of adding them somewhat moot.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 09:56 am (UTC)
littlebutfierce: (dtb yin)
From: [personal profile] littlebutfierce
I have to say that expecting you to read each comment thread closely enough to post warnings that extend to comments seems unrealistic and ultimately unsustainable.

Yes, I agree w/this. Warnings for the posts may be useful & possible but I wonder how much effort it takes to monitor comments? And also as someone said below, I tend to assume comments will be more fail-ful anyway & so read w/care if at all.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 01:46 am (UTC)
dingsi: The Corinthian smoking a cigarette. He looks down thoughtfully and breathes the smoke out of his nose. (thoughtful)
From: [personal profile] dingsi
I'm grateful for the warnings, and would like you to keep them if possible. I'm fine with the way they've been done so far. I can see how there might be a need to phrase individual warnings better (or more precise) though, so I won't argue that point.

The thing is, reading discussions about certain issues can be exhausting and upsetting -- in my personal circumstances, this applies most stringently to discussions with transphobic, homophobic or misogynist content or gender essentialism/sexism. And there are many online spaces -- the majority of spaces, in fact -- where those things hit you in the face unannounced. And I simply don't have that much energy to brace myself and wade through those discussions. Having warnings means that I can manage my energy resources better, that I can avoid upsetting discussions more successfully, and that I can decide when I have the time and mental energy to delve into a problematic discussion (i.e. "oh, better not read that today, get back to it later").

[In that context, it also means a lot to me that this community explicitly states not being "neutral". I get neutral (where neutral = whoops, we regularly forget people like you exist!) to hostile spaces almost everywhere else, thanks. I can RELAX here. That means so fucking much.]

As for what kinds of warnings would be most or least helpful... well, I think even something vague as "problematic" is better than nothing, because of the aforementioned need for managing emotional resources. On the other hand, something like "oppression olympics" would not be as helpful: I know what it means and therefore know, on that level, what to expect. But I won't know what kinds of oppression, or what group of people are being attacked / questioned / weighed against each other. Information about the kind of privilege, or the kind of oppression, is helpful insofar that (due to my individual combination of privilege in some areas, minority status in other areas) not all -isms and -phobias will hit me equally hard, so I might be able to read one but not the other.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 01:54 am (UTC)
lavendertook: (frybread power)
From: [personal profile] lavendertook
I've liked the warning system thus far. I haven't used the warnings in deciding whether or not to read posts, but I find them comforting and corroborating after I read a post or comment thread that upsets me due to -ist or privileged expressions that I recognize. So far, I haven't had a disagreement with the assessments of the warnings. There are more posts that, by my standards, could be given warnings, than linkspam gives. However, the lack of a warning is not a source of harm to me, just a lack of extra comfort. I'll undoubtedly have disagreements with your assessments down the line, but I'm sure I'll cope OK in my own cranky way .

I do expect linkspam to take a stance and not try for more neutral reporting like metafandom strives for-- I'm happy with that and I find the warnings to be in accordance with that stance. However, I'm not dependent on the warnings--I'm privileged not to need trigger warnings. If the work of doing warnings is weighing you all down, then I'm fine with you dropping them. I'd rather linkspam kept going, than the staff burnt themselves out determining if warnings are needed.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 02:26 am (UTC)
torachan: (Default)
From: [personal profile] torachan
I like the warnings, but I think simply warning for the posts themselves is fine. I don't expect to be warned for comments (and generally read comments anywhere with trepidation, because the chance of fail is very high) and think that would create a lot of extra work for the mods.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 02:44 am (UTC)
undomielregina: Rusyuna from the anime Grenadier text: "Grenadier" (Default)
From: [personal profile] undomielregina
I normally don't argue with your warnings -- I have enough privilege to generally take them as an advisement so I don't let the posts sway me into self-justifications.

The only one I've been angry about is the one that sparked this post, and that was because I misread the intent of the warning. I thought the "straight privilege" warning marked something I had missed and that you were ignoring the blatant biphobia, and I couldn't go back and check because the post had been locked.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 06:31 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I have anxiety and depression, so I am for warnings from a disability rights standpoint. Because yes, coming across some vitriolic biphobia, sexism, white privilege, straight privilege, cis privilege, transphobia, and ableism will trample all over my triggers like a stampede over grass. Giving warnings means that people like me can participate in discussions that are relevant to me and the greater fandom which I participate in, without worrying that I'll have my mental illnesses triggered into destroying my day.

I've been coming to linkspam instead of metafandom for these discussions because I've felt that at the very least an effort was made to warn me for triggering content, so that I can take part in these discussions to the best of my abilities. I'd be quite sad to see them go, even though I know it must be time consuming.

Basically, a lot of what [personal profile] dingsi said, up to and including the bit about how 'neutral' spaces are usually not neutral in the least for oppressed people.

Some other warnings I need would be for triggering topics like rape discussion, domestic violence, child abuse, etc. Because those are also large triggers, and I think they would be useful to more than just myself.

I can honestly say I have never argued with a warning put on a post, though I have suggested some warnings be made before, because I wasn't sure if the problems had been noticed yet by the mods.

I wish I knew of a way to make the process less time consuming for you guys, because I know that it would be a huge loss if you guys were to stop warning, not just for me but for others with similar problems. Unfortunately, other than only scanning the main posts and leaving the readers to fend for themselves on the comments (not a great option, but at least then I could read the main post - I'd read it, but not be as able to take part in the discussion, since I wouldn't be able to read the comments with as much confidence, and a lot of the discussion takes place there), I'm sort of at a loss.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 07:05 am (UTC)
holyschist: Image of a medieval crocodile from Herodotus, eating a person, with the caption "om nom nom" (Default)
From: [personal profile] holyschist
I find warnings for queer policing, biphobia, etc. very useful; those come as close as anything does to actually triggering me, and I've seen quite a few similar reactions. I expect straight privilege from straight people, so it's easier for me, personally, to deal with than getting shit from other queer people for not being queer in the correct/approved way, often completely unexpected. So I really, really appreciate those warnings in addition to the other types of privilege warnings.

I don't think warning for comments is feasible; it can pretty much be assumed that comments are always a potentially dangerous space no matter what the original post is.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-02-01 03:32 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Seconding that identity policing/biphobia is one of my major zero-to-rage&hurt buttons.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 09:38 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] paradox_dragon
Personally, warnings here are not important to me. I usually go into the kind of discussions that get linked here already bracing myself for anything from discomfort to rage, so warnings are kind of redundant for me. That being said, while I obviously have things that upset and infuriate me, I don't have any real triggers, which is obviously not the case for everyone. I have no strong opinion, but it seems like it might be better to have a policy of no warnings, where people know they will not be warned, than an inconsistent policy which might lead people to think certain posts are safe because no warnings are present when, in fact, they content is really problematic or triggering.

(Accidentally posted this on the LJ sydication first and then deleted. *headdesk*)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 05:48 pm (UTC)
dhobikikutti: earthen diya (Default)
From: [personal profile] dhobikikutti
I don't think you can or should have to police comment updates to warn for them. If a massive unpleasant display of bigotry has happened in comments before you linked to the post, or if in some other way the comments are more the focus than the post, then sure, warn for them, but if you all feel that implies that other not warned for comments pages are free from problems then just skip the comments warning. You guys will get burnt out, and no one wants that.

I do appreciate warnings on flat out ridiculous posts that have to be linked to for the sake of context.

I can see how breaking down warnings into more specific issues (for example arguments within an oppressed group) can be thorny - my suggestion would be to have a second category called [Ed. Note - ]. This would acknowledge that there are problematic issues found by at least some people, including the editors, in the post, without treating those issues as an unquestionable, universal opinion that deserves to be labled a warning.

Finally, good work on all the things that you are doing. All of your committment and meticulous rigour with this process has been very heartening, and I am very grateful for the massive amounts of work you all are doing.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-01-31 08:44 pm (UTC)
susanreads: my avatar, a white woman with brown hair and glasses (Default)
From: [personal profile] susanreads
I don't have triggers, and mainly use warnings to avoid reading things that will annoy me, because I don't have time to read everything anyway, but they are evidently crucial to a lot of people and the comm would be less useful without them.

I agree with several people above that checking all comment threads is impractical, because you can't guarantee that they don't go toxic as soon as you've left. Perhaps you could add warnings about comments when someone points them out, and have a general disclaimer that unmarked comment threads haven't been checked.

Otherwise, I like the way you've been doing it, except for a couple of individual decisions. Warning for derailing, if someone's post is explicitly tangential or they don't indicate that it's meant to be part of the conversation, doesn't seem fair to me. I think it's important to warn for biphobia and identity policing (queer policing, in this case) for the reasons [personal profile] holyschist described; and for common triggers like discussions of sexual abuse.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-02-01 03:41 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I have to admit, a lot of the things that have really upset me in this past round of discussions have been things said in comments. However, I agree with other posters that warning for comments on every post represents an impossible amount of effort, especially since there's no guarantee that something nasty won't pop up after a link's already been posted.

If you guys began warning only for the post itself, with a note that comments were not warned for and were read-at-your-own-risk, I wouldn't mind at all (maybe with warnings for comments added on request if a reader reported something, ex: "warning for white priviledge in comments added at reader request", but with an explanation that posts with no comment-warnings had not been checked and were not necessarily safe, and maybe also that reader-reported warnings were being added by request and not via the official judgment of the collective).

(no subject)

Date: 2010-02-02 12:04 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I like FWD/Forward's language:

Offsite links are not safe spaces. Articles and comments in the links may contain ableist, sexist, and other -ist language of varying intensity. Opinions expressed in the articles may not reflect the opinions held by the compiler of the post.

Obviously it suits them, not linkspam, but I think the general idea might be helpful.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-02-11 01:03 am (UTC)
folklorefanatic: (Default)
From: [personal profile] folklorefanatic
A blanket warning for all posts is useless. Personally, I haven't run into a warning here that I disagreed with, but I also didn't read the latest discussion.

Since the purpose here is to post links here from a progressive, anti-oppression viewpoint, perhaps you could separate the posts with which the spirit of the comm generally agrees as the main part of the discussion. The second half of the post could have other links with a disclaimer that they "may be tangentially related to the discussion, but linkspam does not think that they are productive in progressive discourse. However, others may find them relevant when looking at opposing or differing views."

Obviously whatever wording you use is going to upset someone. Too bad. I certainly don't ask anyone for permission to link to Pat Robertson's blog when I rebuke or mock him. He posted publicly.

If it's not locked, intent no longer matters, only effect. If a random person can find it and be hurt or offended, the effect is what matters, and I think it's important that post authors have a chance to recognize that what they say has implications in a larger context.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-02-17 04:33 am (UTC)
folklorefanatic: (Default)
From: [personal profile] folklorefanatic
ETA: I completely forgot I had already posted here. In any case, Thursday's comment was essentially the same, if less blunt. I guess I'm more annoyed after reading the defenders of the derailing, because I find their arguments even more hollow now.

1. Yes.
2. All of the ones I have seen have been extremely helpful. I have not disagreed with any warning you've posted yet.
3. They are very important, both for my edification and for my blood pressure.

I don't ask Rush Limbaugh for permission to link to a stupid thing he said in public, and I sure as hell don't ask him if he would mind if I characterize him as an asswipe.

When people say things that use a larger conversation to draw readers and derail from the subject, they deserve to be labeled as such, and that's what I think you have done. Intent does not matter.

There. Simple.
Edited Date: 2010-02-17 04:36 am (UTC)

Profile

linkspam: A chain of links (Default)
Anti-Oppression Linkspam Community

April 2010

S M T W T F S
    123
456789 10
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags