My
trigger warning project generated a lot of controversy today. I was sad to see that
an ultimatum from a user I deeply respect was the catalyst for much of it. I don't want to create conflict and alienating users is the exact opposite of what I was trying to do with this.
I'm also not an authoritarian and I meant it when I said nothing was set in stone. I've listened carefully to all of your responses to my Editor Log and I've made some changes that I hope will alleviate some of the concerns that were raised.
- Guest User may no longer add writeups to the trigger warning categories, to protect them from being misused. Right now I am the listed owner, but I feel like that isn't entirely optimal either. I'm thinking maybe e2docs? Anyone got a better idea?
- As is only civil, noders will be notified by /msg if their work is added to one of the trigger warning categories. This was something that couldn't be enforced before when anyone could edit them.
- If a user strongly objects to their work appearing in a trigger warning category, their writeup will be removed from that category. This was a big compromise for me, since it sacrifices some of the project's already limited functionality, but it's coming across loud and clear that this is how it has to be. To throw some perspective on it, these categories are small by nature, each containing about twenty nodes whose themes of sexual abuse aren't unambiguously indicated by their titles. I do not think it likely that there will be significant overlap between the set of people with writeups in these categories and the set of people people who'd like to opt out of them, but we will have to see.
That's where we're at right now. If you like to read about what these categories are, hit up Editor Log: February 2012 or Trigger Warnings on Everything2, nodes whose content that is more or less identical. This decision making process is ongoing and everything is still being worked out. What do you think of the changes? Better? Worse?