JeLuF saith:
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.
B*******. 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.
Yes. I said, "except for historical articles on the religion[, such] as one might find in a history textbook". This is just for basic content. But even though we _may_ mention religion, do we _need_ to? I'm thinking on the lines of a science-and-math-topics 'pedia - religious articles, despite their legality, wouldn't be relevant.
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" ??
Apparently so. Free speech, though constitutionally guaranteed, is not practically guaranteed - just look at the [[Dixie Chicks]] after they said something unfortunate.
We're not looking at _legal_ constraints (the Wikipedia is perfectly legal) - we're just looking at what would schools have problem with on the Wikipedia. Profanity is perfectly "legal" - but that's the first target of filtering software.
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.
They don't understand that yet. Remember, they're politicians whose job is to make it _look_ like something's being done, not actually _do_ something.
Don't censor wikipedia. It's the responsibility of the teacher to do so.
Regards,
JeLuF
And if the teacher or school board nukes the whole thing? I'm thinking based on the axiom _someone's_ going to censor the Wikipedia. We have the ability to do it ourselves - filter the main site, fork to a filter, fork a filtered version, etc. The schools don't have as much control over censoring as we do, and they'll no doubt choose false positives (even if there are false negatives they haven't found yet).
Also, Stevertigo saith:
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?
A split portal system. I wrote my message before I saw that possibility. It's much superior to a complete article fork.
Just, can we have a few articles forked, e.g., [[Anagram]] which contains some questionable examples?
-[[User:Geoffrey]] Thomas
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Geoffrey Thomas wrote: | Apparently so. Free speech, though constitutionally guaranteed, | is not practically guaranteed - just look at the [[Dixie Chicks]] | after they said something unfortunate.
Wow! I hadn't heard that the Federal government punished them. What was their sentence?
</sarcasm> Here's a clue for any products of the American public education industry: the Bill of Rights is a list of things the /government/ is not allowed to do. It says /nothing whatsoever/ about what individuals may or may not do. I can tell you to shut up if I want to, I can choose to not buy your CD if I want to, and if I am a business owner, I can decline to do business with you. None of those actions is an infringement of your right to free speech. What happened to the Dixie Chicks was the free market in action, not government censorship.
| And if the teacher or school board nukes the whole thing? I'm thinking | based on the axiom _someone's_ going to censor the Wikipedia.
You're right, and when they do, it will be a /good/ thing. We can then laugh and point and shout, "Hah hah, look at the asinine school board! They're so stupid, they're censoring an /encyclopedia/!"
The only force observed to regularly get school boards to change what passes for their minds is public ridicule. I would be /delighted/ if a school board censored the Wikipedia, and the more false positives we can mock them for, the better.
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in ~ sean@epoptic.com | rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
At 06:17 PM 6/14/03 -0700, Sean Barrett wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Geoffrey Thomas wrote: | Apparently so. Free speech, though constitutionally guaranteed, | is not practically guaranteed - just look at the [[Dixie Chicks]] | after they said something unfortunate.
Wow! I hadn't heard that the Federal government punished them. What was their sentence?
</sarcasm> Here's a clue for any products of the American public education industry: the Bill of Rights is a list of things the /government/ is not allowed to do. It says /nothing whatsoever/ about what individuals may or may not do.
In your eagerness to make a point, you may have overlooked that you are the only person to mention the Bill of Rights in this context.
If the result of my stating position X is that large corporation Y takes actions that cost me large amounts of money, when said corporation has no business reason for doing so, *that is retaliation*. Being legal doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean it's not an attempt to prevent me--or the Dixie Chicks--from promoting that position.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote: | At 06:17 PM 6/14/03 -0700, Sean Barrett wrote: | |> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |> Hash: SHA1 |> |> Geoffrey Thomas wrote: |> | Apparently so. Free speech, though constitutionally guaranteed, |> | is not practically guaranteed - just look at the [[Dixie Chicks]] |> | after they said something unfortunate. |> |> Wow! I hadn't heard that the Federal government punished them. What |> was their sentence? |> |> </sarcasm> Here's a clue for any products of the American public |> education industry: the Bill of Rights is a list of things the |> /government/ is not allowed to do. It says /nothing whatsoever/ about |> what individuals may or may not do. | | | In your eagerness to make a point, you may have overlooked that you | are the only person to mention the Bill of Rights in this context.
I did not overlook the mention of "constitutional guarantee[s]" in the message I replied to. The Bill of Rights is the part of the Constitution that discusses "free speech."
| If the result of my stating position X is that large corporation Y takes | actions that cost me large amounts of money, when said corporation | has no business reason for doing so, *that is retaliation*. Being | legal doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean it's not an attempt to | prevent me--or the Dixie Chicks--from promoting that position.
In your opinion, it is not right. In my opinion, it is both right and /vastly/ superior to any alternative I can think of. Do you really think that people should be forced at gunpoint to host the Chicks and to buy their CDs whether they want to or not?
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Aperientur oculi vestri et eritis ~ sean@epoptic.com | sicut dii scientes bonum et malum.
Sean Barrett wrote in large part:
Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
Apparently so. Free speech, though constitutionally guaranteed, is not practically guaranteed - just look at the [[Dixie Chicks]] after they said something unfortunate.
Here's a clue for any products of the American public education industry: the Bill of Rights is a list of things the /government/ is not allowed to do. It says /nothing whatsoever/ about what individuals may or may not do. I can tell you to shut up if I want to, I can choose to not buy your CD if I want to, and if I am a business owner, I can decline to do business with you. None of those actions is an infringement of your right to free speech. What happened to the Dixie Chicks was the free market in action, not government censorship.
Certainly it was not *government* censorship -- and therefore it didn't violate the US Constitution -- but there was censorship by private institutions (such as Clear Channel IIRC).
The only force observed to regularly get school boards to change what passes for their minds is public ridicule. I would be /delighted/ if a school board censored the Wikipedia, and the more false positives we can mock them for, the better.
Witness the public ridicule of the Kansas State Board of Education when they removed evolution from the guidelines for science teaching -- not forbidding it, not mandating creationism, just taking it off the list. The board members that came up for reelection next were voted out, and the next board undid the change.
What evidence do we have that /any/ school might ban Wikipedia? Somebody made a reference to our already being blocked somewhere; did anybody follow that up and see if they would remove the ban? («We've decided that the block was in error and have removed it.» seems to be a common response when sites speak up about these things). Have any of the schoolkids on the mailing list (there are 2, right?) asked their schools if they think that Wikipedia is acceptable? (One should probably ask in a neutral way, of course: «Do you think that http://www.wikipedia.org/ is a safe website?», not «Do you think that http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felching is a safe webpage?».)
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
What evidence do we have that /any/ school might ban Wikipedia? Somebody made a reference to our already being blocked somewhere; did anybody follow that up and see if they would remove the ban? (�We've decided that the block was in error and have removed it.� seems to be a common response when sites speak up about these things). Have any of the schoolkids on the mailing list (there are 2, right?) asked their schools if they think that Wikipedia is acceptable? (One should probably ask in a neutral way, of course: �Do you think that http://www.wikipedia.org/ is a safe website?�, not �Do you think that http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felching is a safe webpage?�.)
-- Toby
Currently, Wikipedia isn't blocked in my school. If I mentioned it, that would open up an inquiry that might lead to its banning. I don't want to do that. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Have any of the schoolkids on the mailing list (there are 2, right?) asked their schools if they think that Wikipedia is acceptable? (One should probably ask in a neutral way, of course: �Do you think that http://www.wikipedia.org/ is a safe website?�, not �Do you think that http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felching is a safe webpage?�.)
Currently, Wikipedia isn't blocked in my school. If I mentioned it, that would open up an inquiry that might lead to its banning. I don't want to do that.
That's why I suggested phrasing the question neutrally, referring to the whole site rather that a troublesome page. But I must defer to your judgement about the safety of any question.
-- Toby
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
The only force observed to regularly get school boards to change what passes for their minds is public ridicule. I would be /delighted/ if a school board censored the Wikipedia, and the more false positives we can mock them for, the better.
~ Sean Barrett | Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in ~ sean@epoptic.com | rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
You can't think in that frame of mind. If Wikipedia were banned in school, than many kids (at least two, we know that for sure) will loose a valuable source of information in the short term. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: | --- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote: |>The only force observed to regularly get school boards to change what |>passes for their minds is public ridicule. I would be /delighted/ if a |>school board censored the Wikipedia, and the more false positives we can |>mock them for, the better. |> | | You can't think in that frame of mind. If Wikipedia | were banned in school, than many kids (at least two, | we know that for sure) will loose a valuable source of | information in the short term. | -LDan
I am genuinely sorry that you might be inconvenienced, Li'l Dan, but I can and do think in that frame of mind. Quite a few kids have managed to graduate from various sorts of educational establishments without the benefit of Wikipedia. If a few more have to struggle along for a few years only being able to access it from home, I consider it a trivial price to pay for improving the system over the long term.
To give you context: I have a five-year-old who is entering formal school this fall. Her future is my frame of mind. If the current victims of the government schools must continue to do without something they have never had before for a little while longer to give her a better future, I -- quite selfishly -- say "so be it."
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in ~ sean@epoptic.com | rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: | --- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote: |>The only force observed to regularly get school boards to change what |>passes for their minds is public ridicule. I would be /delighted/ if a |>school board censored the Wikipedia, and the more false positives we can |>mock them for, the better. |> | | You can't think in that frame of mind. If Wikipedia | were banned in school, than many kids (at least two, | we know that for sure) will loose a valuable source of | information in the short term. | -LDan
I am genuinely sorry that you might be inconvenienced, Li'l Dan, but I can and do think in that frame of mind. Quite a few kids have managed to graduate from various sorts of educational establishments without the benefit of Wikipedia. If a few more have to struggle along for a few years only being able to access it from home, I consider it a trivial price to pay for improving the system over the long term.
To give you context: I have a five-year-old who is entering formal school this fall. Her future is my frame of mind. If the current victims of the government schools must continue to do without something they have never had before for a little while longer to give her a better future, I -- quite selfishly -- say "so be it." ~ Sean Barrett
I still don't really see what point it would prove. Say the National Christian Coalition (or whatever it's called) archived a Wikipedia page and pointed a bunch of people to it, saying that we claim it's an encyclopedia article (they like to do stuff like that). That page contains what some would call pornography. Sure, the actual page might have since changed, but now all of the schools and blocking software companies want to ban it. What do we do? No matter how much we said "it's an encyclopedia", they'd still point us to that archived page and say "no it's not, it's pornography". Or maybe they don't even archive it. Many people would be against the removal of content because it still has some degree of information in it (probably a lot). --LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
What do we do? No
matter how much we said "it's an encyclopedia", they'd still point us to that archived page and say "no it's not, it's pornography". Or maybe they don't even archive it. Many people would be against the removal of content because it still has some degree of information in it (probably a lot). --LDan
Are you suggesting that we be fearful of some controversy that *may happen, YoungDan? Is this how you think the WP should operate - under the fear of some kind of repercussion?
-SM
--- Geoffrey Thomas geoffreyerffoeg@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes. I said, "except for historical articles on the religion[, such] as one might find in a history textbook". This is just for basic content. But even though we _may_ mention religion, do we _need_ to? I'm thinking on the lines of a science-and-math-topics 'pedia - religious articles, despite their legality, wouldn't be relevant.
No, I think all subjects should be covered, unless there is considerable resistance to their subject matter. Why only cover science and math when we can cover almost everything and still get it to schools?
A split portal system. I wrote my message before I saw that possibility. It's much superior to a complete article fork.
Just, can we have a few articles forked, e.g., [[Anagram]] which contains some questionable examples?
-[[User:Geoffrey]] Thomas
I agree, it would be a good idea to fork some articles. For example, articles such as [[homosexuality]] should be written about, but not with as much, uh, detail. --LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree, it would be a good idea to fork some articles. For example, articles such as [[homosexuality]] should be written about, but not with as much, uh, detail.
Do you envision your edupedia to be a read-only medium, or are students allowed to edit articles? In the latter case, some GLBT support group at some highschool may very well decide to reinsert some of the, uh, detail, you don't like.
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 agree, it would be a good idea to fork some articles. For example, articles such as [[homosexuality]] should be written about, but not with as much, uh, detail.
Do you envision your edupedia to be a read-only medium, or are students allowed to edit articles? In the latter case, some GLBT support group at some highschool may very well decide to reinsert some of the, uh, detail, you don't like.
Axel
Well, if they wanted to add to it that way, their changes would (or should) be quickly reversed and they should be directed to Wikipedia and the edupedia policy page. Or, it could be uneditable without permission or acess to Wikipedia (editing would be on wikipedia for this). -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I agree, it would be a good idea to fork some articles. For example, articles such as [[homosexuality]] should be written about, but not with as much, uh, detail.
I can't imagine what details in that article you might object to. Perhaps I'd understand your position better if you gave examples from it. [[Felching]] is one thing, but [[Homosexuality]] is a great deal milder.
-- Toby
--- Geoffrey Thomas geoffreyerffoeg@yahoo.com wrote:
But even though we _may_ mention religion, do we _need_ to?
Yes. This is an encyclopedia which covers all ascepts of human knowledge.
I'm thinking on the lines of a science-and-math-topics 'pedia - religious articles, despite their legality, wouldn't be relevant.
But that isn't what Wikipedia is. If it turned into a science-and-math-topics encyclopedia, I'd have to leave, because not only are those topics I have very little knowledge in, but also very little interest. And why are we even discussing this, it isn't going to happen.
And if the teacher or school board nukes the whole thing? I'm thinking based on the axiom _someone's_ going to censor the Wikipedia. We have the ability to do it ourselves - filter the main site, fork to a filter, fork a filtered version, etc. The schools don't have as much control over censoring as we do, and they'll no doubt choose false positives (even if there are false negatives they haven't found yet).
Censorship is not our purpose. Let the yahoos do their own censoring and just let us write.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com