--- koyaanis qatsi <obchodnakorze(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
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.
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
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