I normally wouldn't say this, because I am quite Christian myself, but I agree we need a 'pedia with NO religion entries, except for historical articles on the religion as one would find in a history textbook, and in the same vein NO explicit topics, or anything of that sort - we should have a separate, school-topics-only Wiki encyclopedia for use at schools or other filtered environments.
The Wikipedia as a whole, as the large project to create a comprehensive encyclopedia, is doing quite well in that respect. If it wants to even implicitly support fair use and challenge filters, let it do so. ''However'', these cannot be the goals of a project that wants to serve as a research reference and educational source for schoolchildren. And I think that there should be such a project, even if it is not the Wikipedia.
I see so far three (ok, 2.5) reasons to implement filters: 1) to protect the Wikipedia from a site-wide censor, 2) to protect those who shouldn't see some content (this point is debatable), and 3) to protect those who don't want to see some content. I realize now that the first reason cannot be effectively implemented without impeding the Wikipedia's larger goals. The second, apparently, is loaded with too much POV (though I still don't see why we have to ''not'' censor content because some people might censor ''too much''...). The third I still believe should be implementable. Surely there can be no subjectivity in labeling [[Transubstantiation]] as "Christianity", and people like Toby Bartel's friend (was it?) can easily block that for him/herself and his/her kids. Leave the "dangerous" stuff there, just '''allow''' us (don't '''force''' us) to block it - why not?
Thus, in order to develop a useful reference for schools, I do believe we have to run a separate project (Edupedia, PediaPedia, WiKidPedia, call it what you may) with the rule of '''no''' religion, '''no''' explicit content, etc. - go to the [[Wikipedia]] for those. As long as Wikipedia is still not banned, it should suffice. But if/when it becomes blocked, we should be able to have the benefits of a Wiki encyclopedia, even behind school firewalls, NetNanny, etc.
So I think at some point we'll either have to fork or implement some type of good Sifter - and for a school-targeted encyclopedia, forking the necessary content seems better. Or, we could even start from scratch with a new encyclopedia and have it as a separate sister project, written at a slightly lower reading level and focusing on a separate set of subjects.
Is there any Sifter code available? Is there a way to download, in a serveable form, only selected articles without taking the entire 1GB tarball?
-[[User:Geoffrey]] Thomas
===== -Geoffrey Thomas geoffreyerffoeg@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
ROFL. This is all wrong. Everyone who has suggested that there be some other site - some other interface for WP - some screwy way of fancifully filtering out the content - is on the wrong track.
Essentially, then the problem becomes one of syndication - of franchise. Each article, based on its political value - rating or assertion can be a source of divergence. If the idea is to have the same article frame differently - under different precepts about how to deal with... then the problem of divergence is exascerbated. Either the article is about "God" - interfaced through the Judeo-pedia - and they get in a tiff with someone accessing the SAME PAGE through the SATAN's Trinity Chuch interface - THIS WILL ONLY INCREASE DIVERGENCE!!
I will dismiss ideas that deal with being a "N*e*w* Wikipedia" - with a little different flavoring here and there.... If you get a hundredth of the energy that WP gets, I'll be surprised. If its quarelling that worries people, then perhaps we should have just a plain "Pacifist-pedia" - where no controversy is allowed.
OF the two choices - a split portal system to the same DB - or an endless serious of mindnumbing "alternatives" to the REAL DEAL - then what the hell do you think is going to happen?
Ive remarked before about the other different ways to "fork" the Wikipedia. I dont like getting "forked" and I dont think the Wikipedia should get "forked" either.
-Love, Peace and Harmoniosity -SM
I normally wouldn't say this, because I am quite Christian myself, but I agree we need a 'pedia with NO religion entries, except for historical articles on the religion as one would find in a history textbook, and in the same vein NO explicit topics, or anything of that sort - we should have a separate, school-topics-only Wiki encyclopedia for use at schools or other filtered environments.
The Wikipedia as a whole, as the large project to create a comprehensive encyclopedia, is doing quite well in that respect. If it wants to even implicitly support fair use and challenge filters, let it do so. ''However'', these cannot be the goals of a project that wants to serve as a research reference and educational source for schoolchildren. And I think that there should be such a project, even if it is not the Wikipedia.
I see so far three (ok, 2.5) reasons to implement filters: 1) to protect the Wikipedia from a site-wide censor, 2) to protect those who shouldn't see some content (this point is debatable), and 3) to protect those who don't want to see some content. I realize now that the first reason cannot be effectively implemented without impeding the Wikipedia's larger goals. The second, apparently, is loaded with too much POV (though I still don't see why we have to ''not'' censor content because some people might censor ''too much''...). The third I still believe should be implementable. Surely there can be no subjectivity in labeling [[Transubstantiation]] as "Christianity", and people like Toby Bartel's friend (was it?) can easily block that for him/herself and his/her kids. Leave the "dangerous" stuff there, just '''allow''' us (don't '''force''' us) to block it - why not?
Thus, in order to develop a useful reference for schools, I do believe we have to run a separate project (Edupedia, PediaPedia, WiKidPedia, call it what you may) with the rule of '''no''' religion, '''no''' explicit content, etc. - go to the [[Wikipedia]] for those. As long as Wikipedia is still not banned, it should suffice. But if/when it becomes blocked, we should be able to have the benefits of a Wiki encyclopedia, even behind school firewalls, NetNanny, etc.
So I think at some point we'll either have to fork or implement some type of good Sifter - and for a school-targeted encyclopedia, forking the necessary content seems better. Or, we could even start from scratch with a new encyclopedia and have it as a separate sister project, written at a slightly lower reading level and focusing on a separate set of subjects.
Is there any Sifter code available? Is there a way to download, in a serveable form, only selected articles without taking the entire 1GB
tarball?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 08:56:30PM -0700, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
I normally wouldn't say this, because I am quite Christian myself, but I agree we need a 'pedia with NO religion entries, except for historical articles on the religion as one would find in a history textbook, and in the same vein NO explicit topics, or anything of that sort - we should have a separate, school-topics-only Wiki encyclopedia for use at schools or other filtered environments.
Bullshit. I can accept that American schools may not indoctrinate a religion to their pupils. But that they may not even mention religion is stupid. Saying "There are people who believe in divine beings. Jews, Christians and Moslems believe in only one God while Hindus believe in many Gods" is just facts. Schools shouldn't have a problem with the neutral presentation of facts.
If an article isn't neutral, it has to be refactored. But not censored. What about the "free speech" principle so many of you have defended? In an American's eye it is OK to say "No Jews have been gased during WWII" but you may not say "There are people believing in a divine being" ??
I have been working in some school projects as a technical tutor, and I learned that pupils should not be confronted with the Internet without the supervision of a teacher. No matter how good your content filter might be, pupils find a way to content not supposed for youngsters.
Don't censor wikipedia. It's the responsibility of the teacher to do so.
Regards,
JeLuF
At 12:52 AM 6/14/2003, you wrote:
Bullshit. I can accept that American schools may not indoctrinate a religion to their pupils. But that they may not even mention religion is stupid. Saying "There are people who believe in divine beings. Jews, Christians and Moslems believe in only one God while Hindus believe in many Gods" is just facts. Schools shouldn't have a problem with the neutral presentation of facts.
Well, as I recall, they don't. I went to public school in California, and there was no ban on the mention of religion.
If an article isn't neutral, it has to be refactored. But not censored. What about the "free speech" principle so many of you have defended? In an American's eye it is OK to say "No Jews have been gased during WWII" but you may not say "There are people believing in a divine being" ??
Well, you certainly can't say, in schools, that no Jews were gassed in WWII. And since you can say /either/ in a general setting, and either would be protected by freedom of speech, I'm not certain that your point here is on target.
I have been working in some school projects as a technical tutor, and I learned that pupils should not be confronted with the Internet without the supervision of a teacher. No matter how good your content filter might be, pupils find a way to content not supposed for youngsters.
Don't censor wikipedia. It's the responsibility of the teacher to do so.
Regards,
JeLuF
I agree with you here. First of all, filtering and censoring just plain doesn't work. People will always be able to get around them, usually without much trouble. Second of all, I agree that it is the responsibility of those concerned with what children might see to undertake the filtering and censoring. As an encyclopedia for a wide audience (i.e., not just children) we must allow parent/teachers/clergy to undertake whatever acts that they see fit to "protect" their charges from the content on Wikipedia.
I also think that any attempt to block the Wikipedia (on the part of local schools, for example) would only serve to help the project as the negative publicity that would likely be generated would probably force the school to unblock Wikipedia and garner us a good deal of free press in the process.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
I also think that any attempt to block the Wikipedia (on the part of local schools, for example) would only serve to help the project as the negative publicity that would likely be generated would probably force the school to unblock Wikipedia and garner us a good deal of free press in the process.
Dante Alighieri
Well, how much is that publicity worth? Is it worth Wikipedia's being banned for a few years? --LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
At 08:22 PM 6/14/2003, you wrote:
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
I also think that any attempt to block the Wikipedia (on the part of local schools, for example) would only serve to help the project as the negative publicity that would likely be generated would probably force the school to unblock Wikipedia and garner us a good deal of free press in the process.
Dante Alighieri
Well, how much is that publicity worth? Is it worth Wikipedia's being banned for a few years? --LDan
Well, I was thinking a few days or weeks. Surely you can hold off on editing articles for that long. ;)
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
At 08:22 PM 6/14/2003, you wrote:
--- Dante Alighieri
dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
I also think that any attempt to block the
Wikipedia
(on the part of local schools, for example) would only serve to help
the
project as the negative publicity that would likely be generated would probably force the school to unblock Wikipedia and garner us a good deal of
free
press in the process.
Dante Alighieri
Well, how much is that publicity worth? Is it worth Wikipedia's being banned for a few years? --LDan
Well, I was thinking a few days or weeks. Surely you can hold off on editing articles for that long. ;)
Dante Alighieri
You have to realise how slow these processes are in schools. It can take weeks or even months just to get on the adgenda for a school board, letalone getting the motion passed and the software changed at the software company and it updated at the school. --LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Geoffrey Thomas geoffreyerffoeg@yahoo.com wrote:
I see so far three (ok, 2.5) reasons to implement filters: 1) to protect the Wikipedia from a site-wide censor, 2) to protect those who shouldn't see some content (this point is debatable), and 3) to protect those who don't want to see some content. I realize now that the first reason cannot be effectively implemented without impeding the Wikipedia's larger goals. The second, apparently, is loaded with too much POV (though I still don't see why we have to ''not'' censor content because some people might censor ''too much''...). The third I still believe should be implementable.
I wonder if there is anybody in group 3 at all. Most people find Wikipedia through some search engine, click around a bit, and maybe add it to their bookmark list. Suppose they come across an article they consider objectionable. Do you really think they would then investigate, find in some FAQ that registered users can block categories, create a user account, learn about the categories, block the proper ones, remember to log in each time they want to use Wikipedia -- all only so that they won't accidentally come across an article that they could have simply ignored?
Furthermore, after going through all this trouble, their original search engine will still present links to all Wikipedia articles, ignoring the category blocks.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Geoffrey Thomas geoffreyerffoeg@yahoo.com wrote:
I see so far three (ok, 2.5) reasons to implement
filters: 1) to
protect the Wikipedia from a site-wide censor, 2)
to protect those
who shouldn't see some content (this point is
debatable), and 3) to
protect those who don't want to see some content.
I realize now that
the first reason cannot be effectively implemented
without impeding
the Wikipedia's larger goals. The second,
apparently, is loaded with
too much POV (though I still don't see why we have
to ''not'' censor
content because some people might censor ''too
much''...). The third
I still believe should be implementable.
I wonder if there is anybody in group 3 at all. Most people find Wikipedia through some search engine, click around a bit, and maybe add it to their bookmark list. Suppose they come across an article they consider objectionable. Do you really think they would then investigate, find in some FAQ that registered users can block categories, create a user account, learn about the categories, block the proper ones, remember to log in each time they want to use Wikipedia -- all only so that they won't accidentally come across an article that they could have simply ignored?
Furthermore, after going through all this trouble, their original search engine will still present links to all Wikipedia articles, ignoring the category blocks.
Axel
For that reason, edupedia would make more sense than having filtering within Wikipedia, although filtering within Wikipedia should still be available for testing purposes. Edupedia would be aimed less at end users and more at schools and parents (using filtering software). --LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com