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).