On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 01:00, Anthere wrote:
Some parents and some schools may prefer not
to let the kids
see nudity.
It is perhaps up to us to give them the ability to give access
or not to give access to religious topics/political
topics/sexuality topics...but it is not up to us to decide for
them what they should do. By restricting information offered,
one decide for others instead of letting people decide for
themselves. Very bad.
Hear, hear!
While I'm not convinced that the particular image under discussion is
the most appropriate, _some_ image is necessary to make that particular
article complete and informative. An article with no photo will be
limited in education value, and an article with no illustration at all
will be sorely crippled.
When it comes to censorship and Wikipedia, there are a few things to
remember:
* The GFDL license means that it's redistributable and modifiable.
Groups who may be interested in providing a "safe", "fact-checked",
or
"family-friendly" version of Wikipedia and promote it to censor-happy
schools are free to do this. The main Wikipedia site doesn't *have* to
cater directly to the censorware-limited market in order to be available
there.
* Erik and other have advocated building a "certification team" system
directly into Wikipedia, such that groups or individuals could verify
certain versions of various articles as being good (for whatever their
criteria are), and people could choose to view only the articles marked
by some particular group. This could be useful here as well.
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)