--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Theoretically, I have no objections against building
an open
filtering
system for Wikipedia, that is, one where several, differing
standards can
be implemented in parallel (such as my team certification model).
Of
course, nobody of the current developers other than myself is
particularly
invested in that idea, so it will probably not get built unless
some
unforseen incident allows me to spend large amount of time on the
Wikipedia codebase (particularly one that does not involve a
kidnapping
and programming at gunpoint).
Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently
addressed
in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to
try to
spell it out more clearly.
F I L T E R S A R E B A D.
OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with
a
fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that
it's a bad
idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content,
*especially*
in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.
If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for
schools and
libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those
filters in
place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these
standards,
so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are
followed."
If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge
these
schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away
with
banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just
because it
discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would
love
to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not
having
them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them.
Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the
center of
a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should
effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of
Jimbo's
mother.
And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair
use (I
don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By
endorsing
fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the
opponents
of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia,
they have
built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing
any
content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of
it
altogether?"
Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia.
Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more
open and
tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important
enough to
have such an effect.
Regards,
Erik
Your opinions mirror mine on these matters.
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com