On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 05 September 2011 03:53 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:54:44PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Yes, exactly! You're smart! :-)
Now, one definition of censorship is :
- Filtering on the basis of prejudicial labels.
We're not actually allowed to censor, because censorship is evil.
If we want to do this, we'll need to figure out a way to make an image
filter
which does not use prejudicial labels.
Or we just reject that definition as obviously not applicable. If people are choosing for themselves whether to filter and, if so, what on then it clearly isn't censorship.
[citation needed]
I don't see why it isn't applicable. You have a censorship tool (your prejudicial labelling scheme), and you are applying it for its intended purpose (albeit mildly).
Hi Kim, I find your discussion of labelling schemes (and the American Library Associations guidelines) extremely useful and interesting. Thank you for taking the time to explain this carefully. It has helped clear up, for me, similar questions to the kind that Sarah and others raised on this list earlier.
I think that's pretty much sufficient to cross the line into actual censorship. Even if you can't quite see how right now, AMA probably can and has. (I can easily think of some scenarios myself, if you like. In fact, I gave some tangential examples on this list today.)
But... even if we can't agree that *that* is actually across the line, the same censorship tool can still be used by others for more sinister purposes. High quality prejudicial categorization would most certainly be a boon for 3rd party censors, in many many ways.
So the options you are advocating are either (arguably) actual censorship, or (if we can't agree to that) the enabling of 3rd party censorship.
The board themselves in their decision are very careful not to cross those lines. My one issue with the board is merely that I think it is very hard _not_ to cross the line.
Of course, some people don't see the danger, and blithely cross the line anyway. (Thus proving my point for me much better than anything I could say myself O:-) )
sincerely, Kim Bruning
citation: http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations...
In relation to the ALA link (which is an exemplar of concision and moral clarity), I have a few related questions.
- Would the article rating tool (Good? Useful? Reliable? etc.) or
indeed any other comparable qualitative rating/ranking (for e.g. GA/ FA status) similarly classify as prejudicial labelling? I ask this because in the article rating tool, I can see it fitting under the same category, but can't see how it would lead to the same results. An archive or library would never employ a qualitative rating like we did, but it makes sense on a place like Wikipedia, and I guess it's because we're not a traditionally constructed archive or library - though very similar in some aspects.
Achal -- yes, I believe a strong case can be made that qualitative rating would fall under the ALA's intent (in traditional libraries, a book might be labeled as "award winner" -- that's an objective fact. It would not be labeled as "good".)
The difference lies in our role as active editors (vs the librarian role as curators), making active choices; a reference work is a different kind of project from a library. It also lies in a difference in intent -- what the ALA speaks out about is labeling that is intended to restrict access. None of our labeling intends to restrict access to anything for anyone.
-- phoebe