Ed Poor wrote:

Ortolan88 wrote:

...

Nonetheless, it seems totally appropriate to solve this problem of incoherence and occasionally upsetting behavior (inherent in the nature of Wikipedia), by moving properly vetted, well-behaved, near-complete, shoe-and-shirt-wearing articles from Wikipedia to Nupedia.

I agree. There's a huge difference between "requiring proper attire" and outright racism, to expand on Tom's metaphor.

Despite the long history of using the former to cover up the latter.

Suppose a town decides to revoke its vagrancy law and allow homeless people to wander the streets and sleep in the park. It would be perfectly permissible for it to draw the line at access to public facilities like restaurants and libraries, with, e.g., a "no shirt no shoes no service" rule.

While your town would thus be laxer than most WRT vagrancy, it would be stricter than most WRT "no shirt no shoes no service". Hardly any municipalities have such a rule for, say, restaurants. And why should they? It's up to the restaurants to make those rules. I know one very nice Moroccan restaurant in Colorado Springs that asks its guests to remove their shoes before entering the dining room, as is only polite in Moroccan culture. It would be permissible in the sense of not violating the constitution (at least in the US), but hardly permissible on grounds of good politics, to ban that. If the library is run directly by the town, then there's more sense in the town setting up such a rule for that building, but frankly IMO it would still be a pretty stupid one. (The town's insurance might force it on them, unfortunately, at least WRT the shoes.)

This isn't "discriminatory", because anyone with the price of a meal can still eat in the restaurant:

Well, no, they need the price of a meal, a shirt, and two shoes.

they just can't come in with their dirty, smelly feet

Speak for yourself. Bare feet aren't smelly, nor dirtier than shoes (which most people don't wash as often as their feet). Only feet that have just come out of shoes are smelly, but if you wash them and then don't put the shoes back on, then they won't get smelly again. Feet aren't armpits.

or show their tits. Likewise, a dress or bathing code in a library isn't necessarily discriminatory. Even bums and hobos are welcome to read there without paying.

Except, of course, for shirts and shoes. And now you added a shower.

I don't mean to imply that there can be no basis for requiring cleanliness. There's the matter of public health (no flea infected clothing, say) and the sad fact that 21st century Western society is so sissified that most of its members truly cannot stand the sight or smell of a human being; these sensibilities require some respect. Nevertheless, the fact remains that dress codes have been used, even tailored, to keep out specifically chosen people. That the law refers only to dress doesn't mean that it wasn't designed with ulterior motives.

So what does this have to do with what we're actually talking about, instead of some metaphor that a couple people have been using? Well, the fact that I would write all of the above explains, through the magic of the metaphor, why I'm happy with Wikipedia and don't feel the need for any sort of expert approved subset or appendage.

But the beauty of digital copying technology (and public licences) is that those of you that *do* feel this need can easily set up your Expertpedia overlay without ruining my fun, and since it's now agreed all around that Wikipedia itself won't change, I can only give my blessing to your project.

-- Toby