All so true. But a "fucked up censored encyclopedia" would hurt the effort
to be a valid and credible source, and thus no more than a waste of
everyone's time.
nobs
On 1/13/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:
Rob Smith wrote:
You can say it a thousand times, but when diligent
contributors acting in
good faith, are driven off by a political machine with an agenda of its
own, nullifies the premise. It not only deters the goal of writing an
encyclopedia, it risks the issues of validity and censorship.
nobs
Now, that has nothing at all to do with what I was saying. (And this is
giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are correct that there is a
political cabal seeking to drive away opposing viewpoints.) I was saying
Wikipedia is not a social experiment. It is a privately funded attempt
to create an encyclopedia by allowing anyone to edit it, as long as they
don't fall foul of the owners. Typically, the community/admins act as
the owners by blocking people who fall foul of them, because the owners
of Wikipedia (the Wikimedia Foundation) give them considerable autonomy
to do so and set their own customs, etc. But the fact remains that this
is a private enterprise, so if you don't like how the Wikimedia
Foundation behaves, just up and leave. It won't hurt anyone if we end up
producing a fucked up/censored encyclopedia, because private businesses
and non-profits have no social obligations beyond following the law.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l