Erik Moeller wrote:
I still don't follow your argument. Do you, or do
you not think that
the proponents of filtering could plausibly argue that all of
Wikipedia, all 130,000 articles, need to be filtered in libraries
because we have some articles about "highly unusual sex practices"?
No, I don't think that. I do think that our refusal to handle this
issue responsibly does mean that proponents of filtering will
plausibly argue that we are a prime example of why filtering software
is necessary and valuable in schools.
If the proponents of filtering manage to come up with
a filtering
solution that only filters the articles they find so offensive,
something which I doubt given the nature of Wikipedia, then all the
better for them -- less work for us. And if they don't, we can say
that they 1) ask us to do the impossible (a lot of purely technical
objections against filtering have already been raised) 2) violate
the First Amendment by hiding 129,500 perfectly valid articles from
pupils because of 500 ones which they consider objectionable.
This completely ignores the most probable outcome. First, they can't
come up with filtering software that does a good job, so our site gets
filtered according to some very crude keyword tools. Second, that
they are able to convincingly argue that this is the best that they
can do, particularly since even sites that purport to be educational
are so irresponsible and unhelpful.
My essential point is that our refusal to have standards is not a
valid tool in the fight against censorship. Rather it plays directly
into the hands of those who argue that censorship is necessary.
--Jimbo