Ray Saintonge wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free food and free speech. If we want to get it to everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I think optional censorship (necessary at some domain names) is the easiest way to do this.
Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
Agreed. A lot of debate occurs over fighting phantom lawsuits, whether over this or over copyright issues. This kind of self-censorship tends to cut out a lot more material than might ever be demanded by the courts.
Ec
I completely agree. Unless there is blatant copyright violation (which can be reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use Wikipedia to define what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as it is too much self policing may just be unwarranted self censorship.
Alex756