Two points: one purely logical, the other political.
1) the logical:
Our goal is, and let me reiterate this for those of you who have forgotten, to make a complete, factual, NPOV encyclopedia. The only viable, though tedious and laborious, option in implementing filters on wikipedia would be to cite who believes what about which article--e.g. "George W. Bush believes this article was written by an anti-capitalist scumbag." "Osama bin Laden says Allah will strike down the infidel who gave voice to these words." "Robert Mapplethorpe says this article is less explicit than the dreams he had when he was 12." Otherwise, when we decide what is "explicit" or "controversial," we will be labeling the articles with a POV. It may be a common POV, or an uncommon POV, but it will be a POV. It will, furthermore, be the "official" wikipedia POV. Wikipedia is not supposed to voice a POV. Voicing a POV = bad. Contrary to mission. Not voicing a POV = good. In keeping with mission.
Wikipedia is not your mother, or your thoughtful well-intentioned son. It is an encyclopedia. In keeping with the general purpose of encyclopedias, it presents information. Some of you will not like information. Those of you who do not like information will be at the wrong site. Don't complain to Firestone because they sell tires and not pizza.
2) the political:
And, since you've brought the children into it when they're not relevant, let me bring *you* into it when you are: There are people throughout the world dying of starvation, some of them so desperate for food that they look through feces for undigested kernels of corn. Already I hear you saying "Whoa! Hey! the details of your miserable life are too 'explicit' for me and my 200-pound 8 year-old son, driving down the street in an SUV eating a McRibs Deluxe." I say to you, you are the posterchilds for miseducation, for fear, for censorship and everything wikipedia doesn't stand for: you've so come to love the weight of your own ignorance, that yoke on your shoulders, that you miss its caress when it's gone. Go in peace, but please do go.
kq
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- koyaanis qatsi obchodnakorze@yahoo.com wrote:
Two points: one purely logical, the other political.
- the logical:
Our goal is, and let me reiterate this for those of you who have forgotten, to make a complete, factual, NPOV encyclopedia. The only viable, though tedious and laborious, option in implementing filters on wikipedia would be to cite who believes what about which article--e.g. "George W. Bush believes this article was written by an anti-capitalist scumbag." "Osama bin Laden says Allah will strike down the infidel who gave voice to these words." "Robert Mapplethorpe says this article is less explicit than the dreams he had when he was 12." Otherwise, when we decide what is "explicit" or "controversial," we will be labeling the articles with a POV. It may be a common POV, or an uncommon POV, but it will be a POV. It will, furthermore, be the "official" wikipedia POV. Wikipedia is not supposed to voice a POV. Voicing a POV = bad. Contrary to mission. Not voicing a POV = good. In keeping with mission.
Wikipedia is not your mother, or your thoughtful well-intentioned son. It is an encyclopedia. In keeping with the general purpose of encyclopedias, it presents information. Some of you will not like information. Those of you who do not like information will be at the wrong site. Don't complain to Firestone because they sell tires and not pizza.
Wikipedia may not be out to protect you, and it is certainly not its mission, but there are other reasons for categorisation on wikipedia.
One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free food and free speech. If we want to get it to everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I think optional censorship (necessary at some domain names) is the easiest way to do this.
- the political:
And, since you've brought the children into it when they're not relevant, let me bring *you* into it when you are: There are people throughout the world dying of starvation, some of them so desperate for food that they look through feces for undigested kernels of corn. Already I hear you saying "Whoa! Hey! the details of your miserable life are too 'explicit' for me and my 200-pound 8 year-old son, driving down the street in an SUV eating a McRibs Deluxe." I say to you, you are the posterchilds for miseducation, for fear, for censorship and everything wikipedia doesn't stand for: you've so come to love the weight of your own ignorance, that yoke on your shoulders, that you miss its caress when it's gone. Go in peace, but please do go.
kq
Learning about sexual practices is not necessary for a complete education. I think that is really the only thing, along with swear words, that would need to be censored at edupedia. Plus, this censorship is optional at Wikipedia.
-LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free food and free speech. If we want to get it to everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I think optional censorship (necessary at some domain names) is the easiest way to do this.
Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Mav's idea is to call the discussion "sorting" rather than filtering. Filtering has a negative sorta connotation - and theres a reason for it, as has been stated.
And sorting is sorta different, wouldnt we say? There are sorting features in WP now -- recent changes, news articles, - any search you do is a sorting, of sorts.
So as a separate discussion, we can discuss sorting, -- but with the clear understanding that *"sorting" means "sorting articles" - *not "sorting people" for the appropriate article for them.
'Spectfully, -Steve
Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
Axel
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:00:47 -0700, Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com gave utterance to the following:
Mav's idea is to call the discussion "sorting" rather than filtering. Filtering has a negative sorta connotation - and theres a reason for it, as has been stated.
Why should we? After all, a filter simply limits the view of 130,000 articles to something managable, and we already use them extensively on Wikipedia. After all, what is search if not a filter? We just happen to be discussing exclusive filters rather than inclusive ones.
--- Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses,
free
food and free speech. If we want to get it to everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and
I
think optional censorship (necessary at some
domain
names) is the easiest way to do this.
Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
Axel
But the sifter code is too exclusive. It would be better if we had a ''white''list, not a blacklist, and if certain articles were forked. But I guess I do agree with your point. --LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Axel Boldt wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free food and free speech. If we want to get it to everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I think optional censorship (necessary at some domain names) is the easiest way to do this.
Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
Agreed. A lot of debate occurs over fighting phantom lawsuits, whether over this or over copyright issues. This kind of self-censorship tends to cut out a lot more material than might ever be demanded by the courts.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free food and free speech. If we want to get it to everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I think optional censorship (necessary at some domain names) is the easiest way to do this.
Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
Agreed. A lot of debate occurs over fighting phantom lawsuits, whether over this or over copyright issues. This kind of self-censorship tends to cut out a lot more material than might ever be demanded by the courts.
Ec
I completely agree. Unless there is blatant copyright violation (which can be reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use Wikipedia to define what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as it is too much self policing may just be unwarranted self censorship.
Alex756
--- "Alex T." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
I completely agree. Unless there is blatant copyright violation (which can be reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use Wikipedia to define what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as it is too much self policing may just be unwarranted self censorship.
Alex756
So we should just wait for those horrible "cease and desist" notices? You're sure they can't still sue us?
I still think it would be best of us to take our own pictures for as much as possible.
Besides, we don't want to be branded something like "a place for internet piracy disguised as an encyclopedia" in the media. Remember, 5 companies own 90% of the media, and they wrote the DMCA.
-LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
"Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.comwrote:
--- "Alex T." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
I completely agree. Unless there is blatant copyright violation (which can be reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use Wikipedia to define what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as it is too much self policing may just be unwarranted self censorship.
Alex756
So we should just wait for those horrible "cease and desist" notices? You're sure they can't still sue us?
I still think it would be best of us to take our own pictures for as much as possible.
Besides, we don't want to be branded something like "a place for internet piracy disguised as an encyclopedia" in the media. Remember, 5 companies own 90% of the media, and they wrote the DMCA.
-LDan
Just because these big companies are behind it does not mean it is bad. I am just saying that it is easy to overreach (look at the Patriot Act) and then make policing too strict which can cause suffering. The DMCA provisions give all ISPs big and small a safe harbor from liability, why not use it if it is there. If there is a blatant copyright infringement there are plenty of people looking out for such things and they get removed quickly, for those cases that might not be so clear shouldn't the party that might beleive it is damaged have the chance to weigh in and give its input? Isn't that the idea behind due process (or the similar fundamental justice as the Canadians call it)? Is there a reason that only Wikipedians can point fingers at potential copyright violators rather than letting the copyright owners do it in cases where fair use might protect the usage? The whole point about the DMCA ISP provisions is that it protects the ISP without resort to the courts, it gives ISPs big and small significant power.
BTW why would someone sue a non profit association that is open content when a DMCA notice will probably do the trick? Most copyright owners are not rich or in the mood to get trigger happy copyright litigators involved when there may be a simple solution to innocent infringement. The damages they will be rewarded are probably just nominal as Wikipedia is not using anything anyone posts on it for financial gain and there is even case law out there that says it will not be held liable for the acts of third parties (after all that is what we are, Wikipedia is just an unincorporated membership association IMHO).
Regarding litigation, Little Dan, this is America, land of the lawsuit, all you have to do is draft a pleading and pay the filing fee and you have a lawsuit. Nothing you or I do will stop people from filing such suits. Alex756
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- "Alex T." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
I completely agree. Unless there is blatant copyright violation (which can be reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use Wikipedia to define what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as it is too much self policing may just be unwarranted self censorship.
So we should just wait for those horrible "cease and desist" notices? You're sure they can't still sue us?
That can be a reasonable approach. A "cease and desist notice" is just that, a notice. If you think that the person issuing the notice has a point, you simply cease and desist, and that's the end of the story. Safe harbor provisions are there to give you time to act upon the notice. If you disagree with the notice then you're in a different ballgame.
Most individuals live in absolute dread of any kind of legal notices. They're so blinded by the vision of being law-abiding that they ignore all the protections that the law affords them. Lawyers know how that game works. They use it all the time to bully and intimidate. They're playing poker against opponents who believe that bluffing is dishonest.
In the corporate world lawsuits about anything and everything are just routine business.
I still think it would be best of us to take our own pictures for as much as possible.
Certainly
Besides, we don't want to be branded something like "a place for internet piracy disguised as an encyclopedia" in the media. Remember, 5 companies own 90% of the media, and they wrote the DMCA.
Does that picture really look right to you? What ever happened to the Jeffersonian ideal that the purpose of education was to know your rights and be able to defend them? Is media concentration an argument to support the principle that "might.is right"? Freedom and democracy do not depend just on laws and constitutions, but on the DUTY to defend one's rights. Caving in to intimidation does not make you part of the solution, but part of the problem.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- "Alex T." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
I completely agree. Unless there is blatant copyright violation (which can be reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use Wikipedia to define what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous
as
it is too much self policing may just be unwarranted self censorship.
So we should just wait for those horrible "cease
and
desist" notices? You're sure they can't still sue
us?
That can be a reasonable approach. A "cease and desist notice" is just that, a notice. If you think that the person issuing the notice has a point, you simply cease and desist, and that's the end of the story. Safe harbor provisions are there to give you time to act upon the notice. If you disagree with the notice then you're in a different ballgame.
Most individuals live in absolute dread of any kind of legal notices. They're so blinded by the vision of being law-abiding that they ignore all the protections that the law affords them. Lawyers know how that game works. They use it all the time to bully and intimidate. They're playing poker against opponents who believe that bluffing is dishonest.
In the corporate world lawsuits about anything and everything are just routine business.
OK, I guess I agree with that.
I still think it would be best of us to take our
own
pictures for as much as possible.
Certainly
Besides, we don't want to be branded something like
"a
place for internet piracy disguised as an encyclopedia" in the media. Remember, 5 companies
own
90% of the media, and they wrote the DMCA.
Does that picture really look right to you? What ever happened to the Jeffersonian ideal that the purpose of education was to know your rights and be able to defend them? Is media concentration an argument to support the principle that "might.is right"? Freedom and democracy do not depend just on laws and constitutions, but on the DUTY to defend one's rights. Caving in to intimidation does not make you part of the solution, but part of the problem.
Ec
Most Jefforsonian ideals have depreciated in today's increacingly conservative government. Right now, the legal argument for compulsory education is so students can serve in the army. That's just sad.
-LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Most Jefforsonian ideals have depreciated in today's increacingly conservative government. Right now, the legal argument for compulsory education is so students can serve in the army. That's just sad.
The child soldiers (8yrs. plus) now shooting at the French in the Congo must have received an accelerated education. :-\
Ec
Axel Boldt wrote in part:
If indeed at some point some school blocks Wikipedia, we can [...] set up your edupedia in a matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
I didn't realise that the Sifter project had written code yet. Where can we find this? Is there (crossing fingers) documentation?
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
I didn't realise that the Sifter project had written code yet. Where can we find this? Is there (crossing fingers) documentation?
The magnificent and magnanimous Magnus Manske spoke thusly:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/sifter-l/2002-November/000034.html
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Axel Boldt wrote:
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
I didn't realise that the Sifter project had written code yet. Where can we find this? Is there (crossing fingers) documentation?
The magnificent and magnanimous Magnus Manske spoke thusly:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/sifter-l/2002-November/000034.html
Yes, this kinda works. No, I haven't worked on it for some time, and there's no documentation.
I thought I could make this work with Yet Another Software Rewrite, but after we installed the TeX thingy, I surrender ;-)
I'd rather add extended user management to the current wikipedia software (emphasis on the software, not the wikipedia; the latter will remain unchanged by this!) to a similar mode like the one I mentioned in that old mail.
Short rules for the sifter: * No editing of articles for anyone, including sysops! * Articles are created by importing them from wikipedia (thus no fork) * Only logged-in users with "editor" state can import articles * You'll have to apply for "editor" state by the Powers To Be with (scientific) reference or similar (e.g. "I've been a good guy on wikipedia";-)
That's why I asked for a sifter test site the other day - testing all this would block the test.wikipedia.org site.
Magnus
Magnus-
I'm not generally opposed to the sifter idea (and would suggest using the Nupedia name for it), but I would like to know who decides which articles can be used, and based on which decision making system. The way I see it the sifter-editors will have two jobs to do:
1) decide whether an article is stylistically correct and does back up its claims with references
2) decide whether the factual claims in the article are correct as per scholarship on the matter.
Most good Wikipedians could do 1), but who will be allowed to do 2)? And if there are several people who do so, how will conflicts be mediated? I would prefer a policy similar to our current sysop policy: If you are trusted to be an editor, you can become one until you are proven to be not suitable for the subject area you have chosen. OTOH, in that case the resulting project would still in part be run by amateurs. Is that acceptable?
In general, the project would have to decide for areas such as history whether only the most recent scholarship is accepted, or whether different viewpoints through time are presented. This is a case where I think a consensus requirement might make sense.
The policies for the sifting process could be worked out on regular Wikipedia pages, and sifted just like all other material.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Magnus-
I'm not generally opposed to the sifter idea (and would suggest using the Nupedia name for it), but I would like to know who decides which articles can be used, and based on which decision making system. The way I see it the sifter-editors will have two jobs to do:
- decide whether an article is stylistically correct and does back up its
claims with references
- decide whether the factual claims in the article are correct as per
scholarship on the matter.
Most good Wikipedians could do 1), but who will be allowed to do 2)? And if there are several people who do so, how will conflicts be mediated? I would prefer a policy similar to our current sysop policy: If you are trusted to be an editor, you can become one until you are proven to be not suitable for the subject area you have chosen. OTOH, in that case the resulting project would still in part be run by amateurs. Is that acceptable?
I'm not into "Ph.D.s only" (and not just because I've only just recently started working on my doctoral thesis;-) What we need in a sifter project are people that can be reasonably trusted to import articles they can verify (your points 1 and 2 above). Mainly, that means they know when *not* to touch a subject. I think someone who has proven to work on wikipedia can become an editor (or "importer"?).
But, as a sifter project promises to give accurate information just like a "normal" encyclopedia (hell, that's the *only* point of a sifter project!), we need to be careful not to let people import tit-and-tat just because it looks OK at first glance. This does not mean amateurs can't be trusted; it can mean the exact opposite, as an amateur will, when in doubt, think "I better leave that to someone else"; a professional might think "well, looks good, and I should know, I studied that stuff for some time".
In general, the project would have to decide for areas such as history whether only the most recent scholarship is accepted, or whether different viewpoints through time are presented. This is a case where I think a consensus requirement might make sense.
Well, the sifter project Larry and I (among others) were working on is "import only, edit on wikipedia". So, the discussion should take place there. Beneficial, wikipedia will thus be improved by the sifter project.
The policies for the sifting process could be worked out on regular Wikipedia pages, and sifted just like all other material.
Oh, you already said it :-)
Magnus
--- koyaanis qatsi obchodnakorze@yahoo.com wrote:
Two points: one purely logical, the other political.
- the logical:
Our goal is, and let me reiterate this for those of you who have forgotten, to make a complete, factual, NPOV encyclopedia. The only viable, though tedious and laborious, option in implementing filters on wikipedia would be to cite who believes what about which article--e.g. "George W. Bush believes this article was written by an anti-capitalist scumbag." "Osama bin Laden says Allah will strike down the infidel who gave voice to these words." "Robert Mapplethorpe says this article is less explicit than the dreams he had when he was 12." Otherwise, when we decide what is "explicit" or "controversial," we will be labeling the articles with a POV. It may be a common POV, or an uncommon POV, but it will be a POV. It will, furthermore, be the "official" wikipedia POV. Wikipedia is not supposed to voice a POV. Voicing a POV = bad. Contrary to mission. Not voicing a POV = good. In keeping with mission.
Wikipedia is not your mother, or your thoughtful well-intentioned son. It is an encyclopedia. In keeping with the general purpose of encyclopedias, it presents information. Some of you will not like information. Those of you who do not like information will be at the wrong site. Don't complain to Firestone because they sell tires and not pizza.
- the political:
And, since you've brought the children into it when they're not relevant, let me bring *you* into it when you are: There are people throughout the world dying of starvation, some of them so desperate for food that they look through feces for undigested kernels of corn. Already I hear you saying "Whoa! Hey! the details of your miserable life are too 'explicit' for me and my 200-pound 8 year-old son, driving down the street in an SUV eating a McRibs Deluxe." I say to you, you are the posterchilds for miseducation, for fear, for censorship and everything wikipedia doesn't stand for: you've so come to love the weight of your own ignorance, that yoke on your shoulders, that you miss its caress when it's gone. Go in peace, but please do go.
kq
Bravo. This entire "filtering" discussion is making me ill. I intend to have no part in it. But then, there are those who don't want me to have any part in Wikipedia at all ...
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com