LittleDan wrote:
For wikipedia to be an valid educational source, it needs to have some kind of approval system. From what I understand, this has been discussed since Day 1 of Wikipedia, but I think it is time to impliment it. If wikipedia is ever to be printed or used in schools, it must be scrutinized and validated (or invalidated) on an article-by-article basis.
Well in order to be "acceptable" in at least US public schools, Wikipedia would have to dramatically censored. Sadly, state and local school boards in the US have effectively censored the content of textbooks by not accepting material that could possibly be offensive to a very long list of lobby groups (both on the right and left of the political spectrum).
Until individual teachers in US public schools (possibly elsewhere) have a much greater ability to choose their own textbooks and resource materials, I don't foresee Wikipedia (as we know it) being used in any official capacity.
But private schools and colleges/universities present a tottally different situation (professors have much greater freedom in their textbook/resource choices). If we have any sort of "approval system" it should be geared toward that audience.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Well in order to be "acceptable" in at least US public schools, Wikipedia would have to dramatically censored. Sadly, state and local school boards in the US have effectively censored the content of textbooks by not accepting material that could possibly be offensive to a very long list of lobby groups (both on the right and left of the political spectrum).
I wonder if NPOV would be sufficient for the bulk of this requirement.
What I mean here is that our NPOV policy and wiki process tends to make pretty sure that no material is offensive to a very long list of wikipedians, from a wide variety of political and cultural backgrounds.
Not everything in wikipedia is going to be considered by mainstream parents as appropriate for children, that's for sure. Probably 99% is, but I acknowledge that a large number of people do feel that children should have even NPOV presentations of some information withheld from them until they are older.
I heard a news story the other day that in California, textbooks are now forbidden to mention Mount Rushmore. See: http://www.wtvw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1288473
Wikipedia would obviously handle that topic differently. We would not omit the existence of Mount Rushmore, but we would cite the names and arguments of those who find it offensive.
A lot of the excessive political correctness that we read about in the news is really just a lack of talent in expression. It's entirely possible to talk about controversial things in a way that is not itself controversial.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Well in order to be "acceptable" in at least US public schools, Wikipedia would have to dramatically censored. Sadly, state and local school boards in the US have effectively censored the content of textbooks by not accepting material that could possibly be offensive to a very long list of lobby groups (both on the right and left of the political spectrum).
I wonder if NPOV would be sufficient for the bulk of this requirement.
What I mean here is that our NPOV policy and wiki process tends to make pretty sure that no material is offensive to a very long list of wikipedians, from a wide variety of political and cultural backgrounds.
Not everything in wikipedia is going to be considered by mainstream parents as appropriate for children, that's for sure. Probably 99% is, but I acknowledge that a large number of people do feel that children should have even NPOV presentations of some information withheld from them until they are older.
I heard a news story the other day that in California, textbooks are now forbidden to mention Mount Rushmore. See: http://www.wtvw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1288473
Wikipedia would obviously handle that topic differently. We would not omit the existence of Mount Rushmore, but we would cite the names and arguments of those who find it offensive.
A lot of the excessive political correctness that we read about in the news is really just a lack of talent in expression. It's entirely possible to talk about controversial things in a way that is not itself controversial.
I just read that news story. It shows how deeply embedded the dumbing down process has become. The most significant fact is that the textbook publishers want to sell books, and they will do whatever it takes to maximize their market share. If that means pandering to the lowest common denominator that's what they'll do. That's not the same as NPOV.
The NPOV process happens openly right in front of everybody. Both sides of an issue get a full airing on the way to a mutually acceptable understanding. The distilled results of that process are akin to only showing final answers on a math test.
Ec
Well, I'd take that news article with a grain of salt. I too am very worried about censorship, and the dumbing down of American education. But this is a complex issue; the State of Ohio chose to take no stand on the teaching of "creation science." This is a position that upset a lot of scientists and science teachers, but had they banned the teaching of CS others would have called it censorship. I think Ray is right that there is a way to bring disputes into the open, though.
But I suspect that the issue concerning Mt. Rushmore is not just censorship in order to spare the feelings of Native Americans. Publishers of school textbooks are very conscious of space limitations. There has been a big push in the United States to begin including material in the curriculum that hitherto had been left out. But to include new stuff, some old stuff has to go.
So there is another force at work in Wikipedia besides NPOV. Because the wikipedia is not paper, we do not have to get rid of one thing just to make room for another.
S
At 04:01 PM 5/22/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Well in order to be "acceptable" in at least US public schools, Wikipedia would have to dramatically censored. Sadly, state and local school boards in the US have effectively censored the content of textbooks by not accepting material that could possibly be offensive to a very long list of lobby groups (both on the right and left of the political spectrum).
I wonder if NPOV would be sufficient for the bulk of this requirement.
What I mean here is that our NPOV policy and wiki process tends to make pretty sure that no material is offensive to a very long list of wikipedians, from a wide variety of political and cultural backgrounds.
Not everything in wikipedia is going to be considered by mainstream parents as appropriate for children, that's for sure. Probably 99% is, but I acknowledge that a large number of people do feel that children should have even NPOV presentations of some information withheld from them until they are older.
I heard a news story the other day that in California, textbooks are now forbidden to mention Mount Rushmore. See: http://www.wtvw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1288473
Wikipedia would obviously handle that topic differently. We would not omit the existence of Mount Rushmore, but we would cite the names and arguments of those who find it offensive.
A lot of the excessive political correctness that we read about in the news is really just a lack of talent in expression. It's entirely possible to talk about controversial things in a way that is not itself controversial.
I just read that news story. It shows how deeply embedded the dumbing down process has become. The most significant fact is that the textbook publishers want to sell books, and they will do whatever it takes to maximize their market share. If that means pandering to the lowest common denominator that's what they'll do. That's not the same as NPOV.
The NPOV process happens openly right in front of everybody. Both sides of an issue get a full airing on the way to a mutually acceptable understanding. The distilled results of that process are akin to only showing final answers on a math test.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
Steven L. Rubenstein Assistant Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Well in order to be "acceptable" in at least US
public schools,
Wikipedia would have to dramatically censored.
Sadly, state and
local school boards in the US have effectively
censored the content
of textbooks by not accepting material that could
possibly be
offensive to a very long list of lobby groups
(both on the right and
left of the political spectrum).
I wonder if NPOV would be sufficient for the bulk of this requirement.
What I mean here is that our NPOV policy and wiki process tends to make pretty sure that no material is offensive to a very long list of wikipedians, from a wide variety of political and cultural backgrounds.
Not everything in wikipedia is going to be considered by mainstream parents as appropriate for children, that's for sure. Probably 99% is, but I acknowledge that a large number of people do feel that children should have even NPOV presentations of some information withheld from them until they are older.
I heard a news story the other day that in California, textbooks are now forbidden to mention Mount Rushmore. See: http://www.wtvw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1288473
I think that's terrible. Wikipedia, NPOV or not, should never censor to that degree. We may never be worthy of becomming a high-school text book, but will be worthy of much more instead.
Wikipedia would obviously handle that topic differently. We would not omit the existence of Mount Rushmore, but we would cite the names and arguments of those who find it offensive.
A lot of the excessive political correctness that we read about in the news is really just a lack of talent in expression. It's entirely possible to talk about controversial things in a way that is not itself controversial.
--Jimbo
No, our NPOV stance will always be contravercial. For some, censorship is absolutely nessesary. For others (most), inclusion is nessessary. These make it impossible to have a truely non-contravercial information source. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com