Erik Moeller wrote:
I can see it now: "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WE NEED FILTERS TO HIDE WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA, FROM THEM!"
Oh yeah. That sounds reaaaally dangerous. Parents will run in terror when they hear our name. Just think - our frontpage even features Martha Stewart. And monkeypox.
But my point is, no one is going to say that, because it sounds just as stupid as you hope it does. These people aren't that stupid, not usually. And certainly ordinary people who have to make tough decisions are usually pretty thoughtful.
What *is* the argument here? That all 130,000 articles of Wikipedia have to be blocked because there are a dozen that describe "highly unusual sex practices"? Do you really think that is convincing?
No, that is *not* the argument, not even close.
The argument is "We need filtering software installed in the schools because even a superb site such as Wikipedia, which should be available to children, contains explicit sexual content about obscure sexual practices. It would be nice if such sites took a responsible approach to things, but they don't, and so we have to do it."
I think that's a very reasonable argument on behalf of filtering software, *even if I don't agree with it*. It's not that the argument is correct, it's that it isn't the screaming THINK OF THE CHILDREN lunacy that you'd have us imagine.
My point here is not about access to the schools, but is rather a simple response to your (insightful!) invitation to think about how our actions might impact the wider debates on school filtering. If we act irresponsibly and ideologically on this point, then we undermine the case against filters by showing that even something as potentially useful as wikipedia may need to be filtered.
--Jimbo