Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself, just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has been had, lets just levae it at that.
And frankly, while I agree that some sort of voluntary content control might be nice, I sorta like the idea that wikipedia will give you the facts straight up, without any spin, no matter how ugly or morally reprehensive they may be. Our responsibility is not to make a school safe version of the facts, our responsibility is to always give the facts with a neutral point of view. If some schools and libraries can't agree with that point of view, that's too bad.
On 3/27/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 26, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any chance to do more harm.
This has nothing to do with censoring Wikipedia. This is about tagging content so schools (for instance) and filtering software used by schools can discriminate between Wikipedia articles. Or would you rather Wikipedia be inaccessible in schools and libraries?
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l