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@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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l