Last week Groundspeak held one of their town meetings and the topic was "Political and moral agendas and where (or whether) they fit in with waymarking." The topic was a hot issue thanks to a recent category called "Pro-Life Billboards" that went through peer review. My initial reaction was anger and disgust at the use of the Website to promote a specific agenda. This is a fun hobby promoting unique, interesting spots to visit. Who would look forward to visiting one of these nasty pieces of work. Obviously I lean to the left on this issue, however it went beyond that. I would be equally irritated to see a category like NARAL Headquarter's or something like that on the Website.
After thinking it through for awhile though, and listening to Opinionate's arguments (who by the way should consider a job working for a freedom of speech group) changed my thinking and helped me get past my bias towards the topic of the category. I mean, what is "controversial?" I'm not trying to get all existential on you, but what is controversial for one culture might be the norm for another and who am I to push my opinions on someone else. It is a dangerous thing when any group tries to push their ideals as the only ideals. But I won't go so far as to totally agree with Nate. Groups that deal in violence and intolerance do not have a place on Waymarking.com.
So what do we do with these controversial categories that come up? And how do we keep the site family friendly? Where do you put a category for say, good spots to find a prostitute, adult video stores, or (the example used in the town meeting) Neo-Nazi Headquarters? (I in no way want any of these things to be categories. I'm just throwing out some examples.) One idea that was thrown out was to create a 16th department on the site that would be for controversial categories or categories with agendas. There could be a radio button added during the voting process and after you vote yes, no, or abstain you would click on the button if you believe the category belonged in this section of the Website. It's one option for an issue that will likely come up more and more as the site grows.
So.....Any opinions on this topic out there?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I was one who voted nay on the pro-life one. I think politically charged categories are not appropriate.
If you allow them I see many more pushing the line.
I'll vote nay to every one that shows up.
:)
While it is true that what may seem controversial to you or me may not be controversial to someone else. However, Waymarking is supposed to be at least a quasi-democracy with the majority of the voters deciding yea or nay on a proposed category. Those who think that a proposed category is too controversial should have the right to vote "no." If the majority votes "no", then the category should not be allowed.
My $0.02 before inflation :-)
Post a Comment