Milos, when I am talking about the possibility of a censored default for IP access, I am
talking about the types of censorship Flickr and YouTube are using. They categorise their
content on the basis of whether it is moderate or explicit adult content.
This has not resulted in Serbian YouTube users having to register an adult account to view
videos critical of the Serbian Orthodox Church. ;)
But you're right in drawing attention to the potential problem of very small
projects' decision-making process being subject to gaming.
Which categories to offer the projects for configuring IP access should remain the
decision of the Foundation, in consultation with the wider Wikipedia community, rather
than any small local project.
For example, I think most people in the wider community would be okay with the idea of
Arabic Wikipedia being configured in such a way that its users will not be confronted with
images of Mohammed unless they register an account and explicitly "opt in" to
seeing them.
You also mention totalitarian countries. This is a whole other topic.
What is being proposed here is that any user would *always* be able to override the
censored IP default mode, by registering an account and reconfiguring their preferences.
The content *would always be there*, but people surfing to it would be told, as they are
in YouTube and Flickr, that they need to register an account to view it.
A totalitarian regime would not be satisfied with that.
A.
--- On Sun, 25/7/10, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am completely unsure how to react after this
sentence: to
laugh or
to cry. I am serious. OK, it is not so strong emotion to
loudly laugh
or cry, but the emotion is in that range.
POV
pushers at, let's say, Serbian Wikipedia that nothing bad
could be
said against Serbian Orthodox clergy just because Serbia
has 90% of
Orthodox Christians formally (including myself, although
I've never
expressed that and although if I have to choose some
religion, I would
prefer Taoism). In other words "cultural context" is
usually just an
excuse for POV pushing of various kinds.
I can understand the aim that we should adapt content
to
totalitarian
regimes which filter Internet access, like those in North
Korea,
Australia and Apple are, for example. I don't have anything
against
creating a censored edition of Wikipedia for all of poor
people who
are forced to have internet access via iPad. It is the
question of
being accessible there or not. But, in all other cases it
is about
allowing POV because of some reason or being overcautious
toward local
laws. Strictly following, let's say, Swiss law on Romansh
Wikipedia is
not so rational according to the Wikimedia goals. Any sane
lawyer
would understand that it has to sue WMF before US court
after a couple
of sentences with a representative of WM CH. But I
understand that it
is more than rational decision for many other places. Like
for iPad.
And if we are really really really willing to go into
censorship, it
would eat significant part of our resources. I can imagine
that I'll
be overloaded with various complaints about POV pushing and
"cultural
contexts" as a steward all over Wikimedia projects. Imagine
any
political conflict. We would have to analyze carefully is
it according
to the "cultural context A" to present facts about
"cultural context
B". For example, I am really willing to know what is and
what is not
according to the Afghanistan and Pashto Wikipedia "cultural
contexts",
not counting regular issues related to Islam.