[tantek]what do folks think about adopting a "CW" practice for adding links to the wiki that contain content (e.g. in threads) that violate our Code of Conduct?
[jeremycherfas]I’d see it as permission to violate the CoC and cannot, honestly, see the point. The warning needs to be directed at the writer, not the reader, and should have bite.
aaronpkGiven that the content of threads can change based on the original author adding things later or other people replying, the only thing you can really expect is a CW of the specific post being added to the wiki. Which also seems super important for that post since the text itself gets copied into the wiki. But as for things later in the thread or the replies...
[jeremycherfas]Posted this before I saw the relevant discussion, so had not realised it was prompted by a linked thread, over which the writer has no control. In which case, as [aaronpk] pointed out, the thread might not need the CW when first linked.
[tantek]I think if you're going to add a link to a thread, it's not too much to ask for skimming the thread from the original author for CW-worthy content. not suggesting as an absolute rule, but rather as guidance, and certainly someone else can come along and add the CW to the wiki entry for that link after the fact as well
[tantek]hard to account for the wide number of potential "other people replying", both presently and in the future. I'm not suggesting CWs for random replies like that to a post that was added to the wiki.
tantek.comedited /feed_reader (+302) "incorporate Software Examples into new section with screenshot for documentation, dfn clarify one-way" (view diff)
barnabywould have been very suitable too, as it’s a film about burnout and young people trying to carve out a place in a world which doesn’t value them