--- Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com wrote:
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.
Yeah, I agree - and I think that LD is in agreement
- that setting up a
means for parents to "protect" children is not unreasonable. They already do. What we dont want is for Netnanny to censor us. So then we should have a scalable protection scheme.
But we could do all of that - and still be censored by CS, NN and others... We would be then trying fit into a mold set by other parameters - CORPORATE parameters - and this would be cross to our original purpose - which is based on freedom and minimalist rules. Its what drives the WP.
WikiLove to all -SM
I think that if Edupedia were put on a completely seperate domain, we wouldn't be censored. I don't think Wikipedia will be censored either, as NetNanny probably doesn't take extra care to look at encyclopedias for blocking. -LD
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com