limholt@excite.com wrote:
LittleDan wrote:<br><br>>>That creates a paradox. Any one scheme for censorship (or even flagging) is<br>>>POV, while a lack of one is also POV. We're stuck. So let's choose the choice<br>>>which will broaden our audience the most: flagging built into the software.<br><br>
Toby Bartels wrote:<br><br>>Failing to categorify content is POV???<br>>Where's the bias?<br><br><br>--
I accept Dan's point. The idea that all types of material MUST be available without filtering (py parents for example) is a POV about how children should be educated. This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of like the difference between 'freedom OF religion' and 'freedom FROM religion.
Close, but not quite.
The point of view is *not* that children should be educated in such-and-such a way, but rather that people who want to be restrictive about the material that people (not necessarily just children!) have access to should set up those restrictions *themselves*; that it is not part of Wikipedia's mission to censor material about certain topics, but that our license allows anyone who wishes to to create a derivitive work which is more limited in scope and more targeted in audience.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)