So what is your answer? Do cultures/governments have a right to National
Sovereignity, or should they give up Soverignity so they can share
everything that is available on the Internet? (your answer doesn't matter,
because it is only your opinion, whatever it is there is someplace a person
who will disagree with it).
To use a temporal metaphor, there's no such things as "a little bit
pregnant". Once you let certain things into your cultural, there's no take
it or leave it, you are forced to take it. Consequently, if you have a
culture based on some form of abstinence (I'm not talking about merely sex,
but abstinence from Islam, Christinaity, Buddhism, firearms, free speech,
pick your objective) and a tool becomes available that allows the object of
your abstinence to enter, you've destroyed the culture through the promotion
of "freedom of choice". A cultural is created by having a set of shared
values. Once the whole population ceases to cherish the same values, it is
no longer a culture. That kind of fracture is what got Ireland fighting over
Protestanism and Roman Catholicism, got Americans fighting over slavery in
the Civil War, has children of Abraham fighting over Isaac and Ishmaeel.
Fractured cultures result in wars.
Wikimedia is such a tool. If we allow wikimedia to be the tool that
fractures a culturet is the instrument of it's demise no matter the outcome.
This is where the decision comes that, "Yeah, well, my way of thinking is
better, so let's go ahead and fracture theirs". However, those very
advocates are very much against allowing their beliefs to become fractured
(i.e., there are people who are willing to stand up for "freedom of
expression" by allowing pronography in some or all its forms, but they are
against censorship - even if that's what the culture wants. They don't like
the fact that someone has rejected or criticized their viewpoint).
The truth is, allowing or disallowing the article is damaging one of the two
viewpoints and some culture will be altered by what happens next. Since
wikimedia is a tool, what is best is to allow them to take whatever actions
are necessary to allow their culture to survive. For that reason, I disagree
that only the one page should be censored. To function in that way, you have
to wait until the culture is offended before you act, thus allowing the
object of your offense to enter before you act. Again, an analogy; would you
think it wise that homes, cars and businesses should not have locks on their
doors? Some people who come in are friends, others are business and only a
very few have ill intent. Should you wait until someone comes in and does
something wrong before you act against them? No, it's a pretty good bet that
someone who comes through your door at 1:00am while you are sleeping is
going to harm you or your property. You have a right to protect yourself, so
you lock your doors at night, but leave them open during the daytime while
you can observe them. Same thing with wikimedia. If a culture is worried
about being altered by the freedom within wikimedia, then they should be
allowed to not allow it in, or, at best, only allow it in on an "as observed
and approved" basis. Since the very nature of wikimedia is flux, that is,
allowing unlimited change as users warrant, watching is not acceptable
security, Q.E.D. blocking the entire site is the only way of securing the
culture you wish to preserve.
I agree that America has turned into the very opressor they escaped in 1776.
It seems they want to colonize the world with their views, even with force
if deemed to be the only thing that will change the mind of their objective,
and spread their culture to the rest of the world in the name of
righteousness (p.s., I'm an American, so I can say what I like about my own
government). Their problem is, they don't realize that the freedom they
think they value was once a shared dream of every American, making it a
culture. America no longer shares the same values and dreams. Partisan
politics have fractured America and the growing schism is a race between
parties for whose values will bhe spread, and where.
Wow! Deep stuff for a wikipedia list :-)
From: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [*
On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
2008/12/9 techman224 <techman224(a)yahoo.ca>ca>:
He right. Wikipedia has to respect other cultures and
not harm them.
If we did harm them, wikipedia wouldn't be neutral
There is a difference between respecting a culture and going against
our own ideals in order to fit with theirs. If we want to be neutral
and protect certain people from things that would offend them then we
have to protect everyone from things that might offend them which
means deleting the entire project.
Wikipedia-l mailing list