LittleDan wrote:<br><br>>>That creates a paradox. Any one scheme for censorship (or even flagging) is<br>>>POV, while a lack of one is also POV. We're stuck. So let's choose the choice<br>>>which will broaden our audience the most: flagging built into the software.<br><br>
Toby Bartels wrote:<br><br>>Failing to categorify content is POV???<br>>Where's the bias?<br><br><br>--
I accept Dan's point. The idea that all types of material MUST be available without filtering (py parents for example) is a POV about how children should be educated. This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of like the difference between 'freedom OF religion' and 'freedom FROM religion.
LouI
_______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
limholt@excite.com wrote:
LittleDan wrote:<br><br>>>That creates a paradox. Any one scheme for censorship (or even flagging) is<br>>>POV, while a lack of one is also POV. We're stuck. So let's choose the choice<br>>>which will broaden our audience the most: flagging built into the software.<br><br>
Toby Bartels wrote:<br><br>>Failing to categorify content is POV???<br>>Where's the bias?<br><br><br>--
I accept Dan's point. The idea that all types of material MUST be available without filtering (py parents for example) is a POV about how children should be educated. This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of like the difference between 'freedom OF religion' and 'freedom FROM religion.
Close, but not quite.
The point of view is *not* that children should be educated in such-and-such a way, but rather that people who want to be restrictive about the material that people (not necessarily just children!) have access to should set up those restrictions *themselves*; that it is not part of Wikipedia's mission to censor material about certain topics, but that our license allows anyone who wishes to to create a derivitive work which is more limited in scope and more targeted in audience.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
The point of view is *not* that children should be educated in such-and-such a way, but rather that people who want to be restrictive about the material that people (not necessarily just children!) have access to should set up those restrictions *themselves*; that it is not part of Wikipedia's mission to censor material about certain topics, but that our license allows anyone who wishes to to create a derivitive work which is more limited in scope and more targeted in audience.
Yeah, I agree - and I think that LD is in agreement - that setting up a means for parents to "protect" children is not unreasonable. They already do. What we dont want is for Netnanny to censor us. So then we should have a scalable protection scheme.
But we could do all of that - and still be censored by CS, NN and others... We would be then trying fit into a mold set by other parameters - CORPORATE parameters - and this would be cross to our original purpose - which is based on freedom and minimalist rules. Its what drives the WP.
WikiLove to all -SM
--- Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com wrote:
The point of view is *not* that children should be
educated in
such-and-such a way, but rather that people who
want to be restrictive
about the material that people (not necessarily
just children!) have
access to should set up those restrictions
*themselves*; that it is not
part of Wikipedia's mission to censor material
about certain topics, but
that our license allows anyone who wishes to to
create a derivitive work
which is more limited in scope and more targeted
in audience.
Yeah, I agree - and I think that LD is in agreement
- that setting up a
means for parents to "protect" children is not unreasonable. They already do. What we dont want is for Netnanny to censor us. So then we should have a scalable protection scheme.
But we could do all of that - and still be censored by CS, NN and others... We would be then trying fit into a mold set by other parameters - CORPORATE parameters - and this would be cross to our original purpose - which is based on freedom and minimalist rules. Its what drives the WP.
WikiLove to all -SM
I think that if Edupedia were put on a completely seperate domain, we wouldn't be censored. I don't think Wikipedia will be censored either, as NetNanny probably doesn't take extra care to look at encyclopedias for blocking. -LD
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
LouI wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
LittleDan wrote:
That creates a paradox. Any one scheme for censorship (or even flagging) is POV, while a lack of one is also POV. We're stuck. So let's choose the choice which will broaden our audience the most: flagging built into the software.
Failing to categorify content is POV??? Where's the bias?
I accept Dan's point. The idea that all types of material MUST be available without filtering (py parents for example) is a POV about how children should be educated.
It would be ... if Wikipedia were in the business of educating children.
This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of like the difference between 'freedom OF religion' and 'freedom FROM religion'.
I don't understand the analogy; it might help if I knew your opinion on freedom from religion, since as it is I can't even tell which way you go on that!
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
LouI wrote:
I accept Dan's point. The idea that all types of
material MUST be available
without filtering (py parents for example) is a POV
about how children should
be educated.
It would be ... if Wikipedia were in the business of educating children.
This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of
like the
difference between 'freedom OF religion' and
'freedom FROM religion'.
I don't understand the analogy; it might help if I knew your opinion on freedom from religion, since as it is I can't even tell which way you go on that! -- Toby
Freedom from religion is the censorship of pagan religions (even though there is really nothing wrong with them), accused cults, "destructive" faiths like some fundimentalist Islam, and otherwise "barbaric" religions. Some say that these religions do not lead to anything constructive and just destroy things. I don't believe in it, but we must acknowledge that many do. Since this POV is held almost exclusively by Fundimentalist Christians, I suggest that we use their POV about what should be blocked. I'm just trying to be realistic here; if we blocked [[christianity]], that may be more NPOV, but not practical for the dominant wetern world. Remember: this filter is only optional. It is not forced on anyone. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
Freedom from religion is the censorship of pagan religions (even though there is really nothing wrong with them), accused cults, "destructive" faiths like some fundimentalist Islam, and otherwise "barbaric" religions. Some say that these religions do not lead to anything constructive and just destroy things. I don't believe in it, but we must acknowledge that many do. Since this POV is held almost exclusively by Fundimentalist Christians
Hardly!
Zoe, who doesn't think this discussion belongs here anyway
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
At 04:06 PM 6/12/2003, you wrote:
Freedom from religion is the censorship of pagan religions (even though there is really nothing wrong with them), accused cults, "destructive" faiths like some fundimentalist Islam, and otherwise "barbaric" religions. Some say that these religions do not lead to anything constructive and just destroy things. I don't believe in it, but we must acknowledge that many do. Since this POV is held almost exclusively by Fundimentalist Christians, I suggest that we use their POV about what should be blocked. I'm just trying to be realistic here; if we blocked [[christianity]], that may be more NPOV, but not practical for the dominant wetern world. Remember: this filter is only optional. It is not forced on anyone. --LittleDan
Well, I'm not certain that I agree with your /definition/ of freedom FROM religion, but I certainly like the way it sounds. I say we ban all dangerous cults and barbaric religions. I also think that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (and any other monotheistic religions I can find... maybe there's some Zoroastrianists out there) should be first to be banned. This would, of course, be rapidly followed by all the polytheistic religions. Next come the animists. Lastly, any "miscellaneus" religions that don't fit any of the above schema should also be banned. Once those are out of the way, I'm sure we will all be better off.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Best to ban all religious and political sentiments that have resulted in killing. That should do it.
Fred
From: Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:00:22 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Let's ban 'em all. Any objections?
At 04:06 PM 6/12/2003, you wrote:
Freedom from religion is the censorship of pagan religions (even though there is really nothing wrong with them), accused cults, "destructive" faiths like some fundimentalist Islam, and otherwise "barbaric" religions. Some say that these religions do not lead to anything constructive and just destroy things. I don't believe in it, but we must acknowledge that many do. Since this POV is held almost exclusively by Fundimentalist Christians, I suggest that we use their POV about what should be blocked. I'm just trying to be realistic here; if we blocked [[christianity]], that may be more NPOV, but not practical for the dominant wetern world. Remember: this filter is only optional. It is not forced on anyone. --LittleDan
Well, I'm not certain that I agree with your /definition/ of freedom FROM religion, but I certainly like the way it sounds. I say we ban all dangerous cults and barbaric religions. I also think that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (and any other monotheistic religions I can find... maybe there's some Zoroastrianists out there) should be first to be banned. This would, of course, be rapidly followed by all the polytheistic religions. Next come the animists. Lastly, any "miscellaneus" religions that don't fit any of the above schema should also be banned. Once those are out of the way, I'm sure we will all be better off.
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A filter can easily be put in place by filtering any article with the word "God." :)
-- Michael Becker
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Dante Alighieri Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 6.00 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Let's ban 'em all. Any objections?
Well, I'm not certain that I agree with your /definition/ of freedom FROM religion, but I certainly like the way it sounds. I say we ban all dangerous cults and barbaric religions. I also think that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (and any other monotheistic religions I can find... maybe there's some Zoroastrianists out there) should be first to be banned. This would, of course, be rapidly followed by all the polytheistic religions. Next come the animists. Lastly, any "miscellaneus" religions that don't fit any of the above schema should also be banned. Once those
are out of the way, I'm sure we will all be better off.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
root wrote:
A filter can easily be put in place by filtering any article with the word "God." :)
And since the backward spelling is really an encrypted code for the same word, we may as well do the same with the word "dog". :-)
Ec
Korekt mi yf A'em rang -
Does'nt it seem like group discussions in general follow a nice pattern - of starting out with problems/assumptions/assumed problems/problematic assumptions - and then they finally boil down to their real essence after a couple of deiz?
The essence usually falls into the categories of - unfeasible/feasible - resonable/uneasonable - POV/NPOV - constitutional/unconstitutional (meaning the WP constitution ). Just sorting these basic things out, I think is hard sometimes - and its good to have a sorta way of explaining these fundamental problems in discussions that get in the way before any discussion takes place.
-S
LittleDan wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
LouI wrote:
This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of like the difference between 'freedom OF religion' and 'freedom FROM religion'.
I don't understand the analogy; it might help if I knew your opinion on freedom from religion, since as it is I can't even tell which way you go on that!
Freedom from religion is the censorship of pagan religions (even though there is really nothing wrong with them), accused cults, "destructive" faiths like some fundimentalist Islam, and otherwise "barbaric" religions. Some say that these religions do not lead to anything constructive and just destroy things. I don't believe in it, but we must acknowledge that many do.
Interesting. I've *never* heard the term used this way. OTC, it's the fundamentalist Christians that *oppose* the concept, because it means (when I've seen it) the freedom of atheist types to avoid even nondenominational references to "God" etc by the government in the United States. The religious right claims that they have no such right, since the Consitution says only "of", not "from". The secular left responds that "freedom from" is part of "freedom of".
Since this POV is held almost exclusively by Fundimentalist Christians, I suggest that we use their POV about what should be blocked. I'm just trying to be realistic here; if we blocked [[christianity]], that may be more NPOV, but not practical for the dominant wetern world. Remember: this filter is only optional. It is not forced on anyone.
If the filter is found on Edupedia rather than Wikipedia directly, then I won't oppose this decision, since I won't be making it. But here on Wikipedia, a labelling category that covers Islam and paganism but not Christianity would get into a lot of trouble. ^_^ (This isn't an argument against LittleDan, who seems to like Edupedia.)
-- Toby
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Freedom from religion is the censorship of pagan religions (even though there is really nothing wrong with them), accused cults, "destructive" faiths like some fundimentalist Islam, and otherwise "barbaric" religions. Some say that these religions do not lead to anything constructive and just destroy things. I don't believe in it, but we must acknowledge that many do. Since this POV is held almost exclusively by Fundimentalist Christians, I suggest that we use their POV about what should be blocked. I'm just trying to be realistic here; if we blocked [[christianity]], that may be more NPOV, but not practical for the dominant wetern world. Remember: this filter is only optional. It is not forced on anyone.
This is not at all how I would define the difference between freedom "of" and "from" religion.
Freedom of religion is the right to practise the religion you prefer.
Freedom from religion is the right not to have a religion (including a state religion) imposed upon you. Any country that has been established on the basis of a particular religious belief is bound to have problems with this.
Ec