--- cprompt cprompt@tmbg.org wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
But we don't want a fork. In a firk, we'd have to rewrite (or copy) the whole encyclopedia. We don't want to do that. We want to stay here. We just want
to
make it *optional* to filter out objectionable content. -LittleDan
The problem you are mentioning is that school administrators will want to ban Wikipedia on the grounds that students may look up material they find objectionable. The problem is, the responsibility still lies on the user to refrain from viewing it! As an optional system, users could easily opt out of filtering, making this is a very ineffective solution. Whereas, a fork would be very useful. Since we are working with open content, anything on the Wikipedia can be used on the Edupedia. The Edupedia could also have a different way of handling user submissions (perhaps requiring a peer to OK an edit). Administrators can ban the Wikipedia.org site knowing that Edupedia tries their hardest to remain appropriate for educational institutions. And article forks can happen and will be useful. (You had mentioned you felt a fork of [[homosexuality]] would be more appropriate for school.)
A fork will make a site that is "appropriate" for schools. A filtering system will introduce several problems. Someone posted that Jimbo would support a project like this.
The high school I attended would probably have blocked Wikipedia on the grounds that it was a "Chat/Message Board" site. Whether or not a logged in user can see a photo of a clitoris would not help.
--
--cprompt
I think I was unclear. The filtering is optional on Wikipedia, but manditory on edupedia. Edupedia also has some forked articles accessable from both wikipedia and edupedia. Also, edupedia might not have editing capablities (and therefore talk pages), but I think that would be unfortunate. Actually, I was once kicked off a school computer when editing wikipedia.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com