http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/books/05wiki.html?ref=world
Media coverage of the Muhammad image problem.
On Feb 5, 2008 9:14 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
For me the greatest concern of a censorship mechanism is that it blatantly encourages NPOV violation as common practice.
"Censorship" is of course a heavily loaded word, but I've never viewed content-tagging mechanisms, or "hide" mechanisms that are positively *un*hidden by default, as censorship.
(But yes, were such mechanisms in place, I suppose epic POV battles would be bound to erupt around the question of whether to use them in particular cases, immaterial though the outcome would be to the majority of readers who browse using default settings.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails
beginning >mid-January," said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, >which administers the various online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages.
A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site's polite but firm
refusal to remove the >images: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a >neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."
The site considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to
choose whether >to view the page with images.
It's moments like these that make me proudest to be a Wikipedian. To be a part of the community that said no censorship, whether it be from religious zealots or Chinese bureaucrats, is a wonderful thing.
On Feb 5, 2008 6:33 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/books/05wiki.html?ref=world
Media coverage of the Muhammad image problem.
On Feb 5, 2008 9:14 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
For me the greatest concern of a censorship mechanism is that it blatantly encourages NPOV violation as common practice.
"Censorship" is of course a heavily loaded word, but I've never viewed content-tagging mechanisms, or "hide" mechanisms that are positively *un*hidden by default, as censorship.
(But yes, were such mechanisms in place, I suppose epic POV battles would be bound to erupt around the question of whether to use them in particular cases, immaterial though the outcome would be to the majority of readers who browse using default settings.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l