Enigma foundry

Welcome!

Hello, Enigma foundry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rigadoun (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Joshua:

I agree entirely that the neutral point of view must be maintained. The section I was editing was on the criticism of the ACTA, and the FSF has clearly stated that they consider the ACTA a threat to freedom, not just to free software. See their quote: "in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting...."

To state that the threat is to free software alone would give the reader erroneous information.

They are specifically speaking of freedom to produce free software, hence the original heading "threat to free software" Using "Threat to freedom" is taking this to mean something they did not. We should not be interpreting their quotes, just reporting what they have said. And the article quotes them as calling it a "threat to free software". —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are interpreting it, and you are interpreting the quote in an extremely narrow way that is not objective. The quote refers to the danger to freedom and they later describe that that freedom as being potentially used to create free software. But the quote is: "in which the freedom that is required to produce..." So they have said the ACTA is a threat to freedom. If someone said they were going to steal my car, and that I couldn't take a trip to Chicago if my car was stolen, would you say that they threatened to steal my car or threatened to keep me from Chicago?

In anycase, the quote "An open letter signed by many organizations, including Consumers International, EDRi (27 European civil rights and privacy NGOs), the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ASIC (French trade association for web2.0 companies), the Free Knowledge Institute (FKI) states that "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy." should put this issue to bed: It is an undisputed fact that the critics of the ACTA say that the ACTA is a threat to freedom, and to not report this important fact would not be accurate. enigma_foundry (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was never disputing what the FSF was saying. I was disputing what you had as the section title. I don't know why you are getting so upset about it, "Threats to Freedom" doesn't really describe what is in the section, while "Threats to Free Software" does. If you were to keep the section title the way it is, you would have to incorporate the privacy section as well, since that is also a threat to freedom. I just want an accurate section title, I don't have an agenda to push. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 01:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)