Jimmy Wales wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>If you spell it out in such a way that it includes
explicity sexual
>content but not explicit religious content,
then
how is this NPOV,
>given an earlier poster (Ec?) that considers
the
latter harmful to
>kids. (And if Ec is joking, I have a friend
that
seriously believes
that about
Christianity in particular.)
End users can adjust it however they like, so
what's the problem?
I think both Erik and I had made
suggestions of that
sort. I am not a
rabid advocate of censorship, and I don't believe
that he is either. I
also agree that any such censorship would be applied
'''only''' at the
end user level.
The visions which Erik and I were expressing were
technically very
different in the way they would function, but
probably very similar in
what they would accomplish. The capacity of these
systems for
censorship is secondary and incidental. They would
work just as well if
a person wanted to censor out articles about nuclear
physics or ancient
Egyptian history, or some other subject that would
leave all the rest of
us scratcuing our heads. To me the real issue is
about scaling up and
indexing in a project that is growing tremendously
fast.
In my particular vision of coding the end user would
simply have the
opportunity to not download articles coded for sex,
religion or knitting..
Ec
I think a built-in category system would be very
useful for other purposes, too. But I still think that
we would benefit from having a seperate domain where
certain things were by-default blocked.
--LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).