Anthere wrote:
..... There are no limits to what we can assume people might label "to be censored". Which is why I am against *us* defining what could be censored.
You hit the nail on the head (sic. you are 100% right, IMO). That is why we need a bunch of external team certification/sifter projects setting their own criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let us get back to business writting a complete, accurate and NPOV encyclopedia.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Anthere wrote:
There are no limits to what we can assume people might label "to be censored". Which is why I am against *us* defining what could be censored.
You hit the nail on the head (sic. you are 100% right, IMO). That is why we need a bunch of external team certification/sifter projects setting their own criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let us get back to business writting a complete, accurate and NPOV encyclopedia.
Keeping in mind that many of "us" will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Anthere wrote:
There are no limits to what we can assume people might label "to be censored". Which is why I am against *us* defining what could be censored.
You hit the nail on the head (sic. you are 100%
right,
IMO). That is why we need a bunch of external team certification/sifter projects setting their own criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let
us
get back to business writting a complete, accurate
and
NPOV encyclopedia.
Keeping in mind that many of "us" will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project. -- Toby
Also that the programming would probably be much harder if a seperate database and web interface had to be created for approval. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
LittleDan wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
You hit the nail on the head (sic. you are 100% right, IMO). That is why we need a bunch of external team certification/sifter projects setting their own criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let us get back to business writting a complete, accurate and NPOV encyclopedia.
Keeping in mind that many of "us" will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.
Also that the programming would probably be much harder if a seperate database and web interface had to be created for approval.
If Edupedia follows the model that Sifter was planning on, the main database would remain in one place, at Wikipedia. Any separate Edupedia database would only have to specify which Wikipedia pages (and maybe which versions) are included in the various categories that it supports. To some extent, a <www.edupedia.org> domain will necessitate a separate web interface, but of course it could be very similar to Wikipedia's. The bulk of the data, in any case, would be together.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
If Edupedia follows the model that Sifter was planning on, the main database would remain in one place, at Wikipedia. Any separate Edupedia database would only have to specify which Wikipedia pages (and maybe which versions) are included in the various categories that it supports. To some extent, a <www.edupedia.org> domain will necessitate a separate web interface, but of course it could be very similar to Wikipedia's. The bulk of the data, in any case, would be together.
-- Toby
Jimbo already said (I think) that he would be willing to host a project like edupedia. And we certainly can't have the reviewing and viewing on the same domain, because that would defeat the purpose. Plus, edupedia wouldn't follow the same model at all. We'd actually make a blacklist, not a whitelist like sifter. That's kinda a non-sequetor, though. --LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
LittleDan wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
If Edupedia follows the model that Sifter was planning on, the main database would remain in one place, at Wikipedia. Any separate Edupedia database would only have to specify which Wikipedia pages (and maybe which versions) are included in the various categories that it supports. To some extent, a <www.edupedia.org> domain will necessitate a separate web interface, but of course it could be very similar to Wikipedia's. The bulk of the data, in any case, would be together.
Jimbo already said (I think) that he would be willing to host a project like edupedia. And we certainly can't have the reviewing and viewing on the same domain, because that would defeat the purpose. Plus, edupedia wouldn't follow the same model at all. We'd actually make a blacklist, not a whitelist like sifter. That's kinda a non-sequetor, though.
I don't think that the colour of the list is a great difference in principle, although you're right that it's not quite the same. I'm not sure what you mean by "reviewing and viewing". The sifters that review Wikipedia content for Edupedia would need special permissions on Edupedia to do this; ordinary users could see only the accepted content (that is those pages that weren't blacklisted), unless they switch over to the other site, Wikipedia. Ordinary users of Edupedia might also edit Wikipedia, by editing Edupedia, which would send the results to Wikipedia. (But they couldn't edit a blacklisted page.)
-- Toby
"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'" --Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
-SM
--- Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com wrote:
"I worry about my child and the Internet all thetime, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'" --Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
-SM
That comment was irrelavent. The proposed filtering system would be ''optional''.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
LittleDan wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
If Edupedia follows the model that Sifter was
planning on,
the main database would remain in one place, at
Wikipedia.
Any separate Edupedia database would only have to
specify
which Wikipedia pages (and maybe which versions) are included in the various categories that it
supports.
To some extent, a <www.edupedia.org> domain will necessitate a separate web interface, but of course it could be very similar to
Wikipedia's.
The bulk of the data, in any case, would be
together.
Jimbo already said (I think) that he would be
willing
to host a project like edupedia. And we certainly can't have the reviewing and viewing on the same domain, because that would defeat the purpose.
Plus,
edupedia wouldn't follow the same model at all.
We'd
actually make a blacklist, not a whitelist like sifter. That's kinda a non-sequetor, though.
I don't think that the colour of the list is a great difference in principle, although you're right that it's not quite the same. I'm not sure what you mean by "reviewing and viewing". The sifters that review Wikipedia content for Edupedia would need special permissions on Edupedia to do this; ordinary users could see only the accepted content (that is those pages that weren't blacklisted), unless they switch over to the other site, Wikipedia. Ordinary users of Edupedia might also edit Wikipedia, by editing Edupedia, which would send the results to Wikipedia. (But they couldn't edit a blacklisted page.)
-- Toby
I was thinking that people would edit the category on Wikipedia (they could manually choose their blocking settings, protected by a seperate password for parents) and edupedia would have the categories all blocked by default (unless the categories included unobjectionable material) with no changing of this with accounts. The categories could only be edited on Wikiedia, not edupedia, so no permissions would be required. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
I was thinking that people would edit the category on Wikipedia (they could manually choose their blocking settings, protected by a seperate password for parents) and edupedia would have the categories all blocked by default (unless the categories included unobjectionable material) with no changing of this with accounts.
I didn't understand the separate-password-for-parents remark. No matter what category blocks the parents set on their or their kids' accounts, kids can of course still access all Wikipedia content by simply not logging in.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
I was thinking that people would edit the category
on
Wikipedia (they could manually choose their
blocking
settings, protected by a seperate password for parents) and edupedia would have the categories
all
blocked by default (unless the categories included unobjectionable material) with no changing of this with accounts.
I didn't understand the separate-password-for-parents remark. No matter what category blocks the parents set on their or their kids' accounts, kids can of course still access all Wikipedia content by simply not logging in.
Axel
Yeah, I guess that wouldn't make sense. Sorry. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I was thinking that people would edit the category on Wikipedia (they could manually choose their blocking settings, protected by a seperate password for parents) and edupedia would have the categories all blocked by default (unless the categories included unobjectionable material) with no changing of this with accounts. The categories could only be edited on Wikiedia, not edupedia, so no permissions would be required.
The value of having categories on Edupedia itself is that the Edupedia project might make judgements that Wikipedia itself cannot (such as what is "mature content"). Also, the Sifter paradigm allows referring to specific versions in the history of a Wikipedia article; Edupedia might assign different versions to different categories while Wikipedia probably would not.
-- Toby
Toby:
Keeping in mind that many of "us" will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project. -- Toby
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Also that the programming would probably be much harder if a seperate database and web interface had to be created for approval.
Agreed. I see no reason why we should wait for "someone else" to work on these issues, particularly since a content categorization scheme can take us a long way in the right direction.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Agreed. I see no reason why we should wait for "someone else" to work on these issues, particularly since a content categorization scheme can take us a long way in the right direction.
--Jimbo
...to acceptance only. Although I agree with categorising things for some censorship, it will only lead to greater acceptance, not a better encyclopedia. We have to keep that in mind while doing this. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Toby Bartels wrote:
That is why we need a bunch of external team certification/sifter projects setting their own criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let us get back to business writting a complete, accurate and NPOV encyclopedia.
Keeping in mind that many of "us" will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.
... or project'''s'''. That's fine. It's just another fork. That project will develop editorial policies of its own, and will attract its own supporters. It all seems like a natural evolution to me. I would most likely stay here with the Grandpa-Wiki project, but that's just a personal preference not much different from the choice to work on an other laguage Wiki.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
That is why we need a bunch of external team certification/sifter projects setting their own criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let
us
get back to business writting a complete, accurate
and
NPOV encyclopedia.
Keeping in mind that many of "us" will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.
... or project'''s'''. That's fine. It's just another fork. That project will develop editorial policies of its own, and will attract its own supporters. It all seems like a natural evolution to me. I would most likely stay here with the Grandpa-Wiki project, but that's just a personal preference not much different from the choice to work on an other laguage Wiki.
Ec
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
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
LittleDan wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Keeping in mind that many of "us" will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.
... or project'''s'''. That's fine. It's just another fork.
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.
Right, we only have to fork filtering schemes, not the article database, which would remain together.
-- Toby
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 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
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
..... There are no limits to what we can assume people might label "to be censored". Which is why I am against *us* defining what could be censored.
You hit the nail on the head (sic. you are 100% right, IMO). That is why we need a bunch of external team certification/sifter projects setting their own criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let us get back to business writting a complete, accurate and NPOV encyclopedia.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Well, only a few people want to work on the [[Republic of Ireland]] ariticle, maybe it should be moved off to a seperate 'Irepedia'.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Well, only a few people want to work on the [[Republic of Ireland]] ariticle, maybe it should be moved off to a seperate 'Irepedia'.
I'm sure that there are some of us who take Irish subjects very seriously. Probably as many or more will work on them as on many of our individual language pedias. It would be an unfortunate discrimination to marginalize the Irish onto an "Encyclopedia of Anger" :-)
Ec.
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Well, only a few people want to work on the
[[Republic
of Ireland]] ariticle, maybe it should be moved off
to
a seperate 'Irepedia'.
I'm sure that there are some of us who take Irish subjects very seriously. Probably as many or more will work on them as on many of our individual language pedias. It would be an unfortunate discrimination to marginalize the Irish onto an "Encyclopedia of Anger" :-)
Ec.
Similarly, only some of us are interested in keeping Wikipedia banned from schools.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
--- Brion Vibber vibber@aludra.usc.edu wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Similarly, only some of us are interested in
keeping
Wikipedia banned from schools.
Have you talked to your school board about their filtering policy?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
oops, I mean keeping wikipedia from being banned from schools.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com