[Foundation-l] Adult and Illegal content on Wikimedia

[Ray Saintonge]

Gavin Chait wrote:

>>opinions like this that seem to encourage this type of content to remain
>>    
>>
>from Robert Horning
>  
>
>>The problems with such an article is more likely to be in its effect on
>>the copycats and other unprofessional idiots.
>>Calling on Jimbo to decide on something is a cop-out.  It's a sad
>>admission that the community isn't strong enough to settle its own
>>problems.
>>    
>>
>from Ray Saintonge
>
>Which is precisely why I suggested having a constitution of some 
>description.
>
The best constitutions deal in broad strokes.  Our constitution could 
very well put forth that NPOV is a fundamental concept, but going into 
too much detail would detract from the dynamism of such a concept.

>If you don't want this type of content on wikibooks then you have to give up 
>neutrality.  And you're going to have to be very specific.  
>
I agree that any kind of such ban will compromise neutrality, and that 
exceptions to a constitution  need to be specific.

>I am working on 
>a wiki project that educates how to start businesses.
>
>I would hate for someone later on to declare that "capitalism is theft" and 
>then go on to use that as a reason to remove my project.
>
There are times when I may be sympathetic to that slogan, but it would 
be abusive to use it as an excuse to stop the project that your 
describe.  At times too, I can feel that starting your own business is a 
good way of avoiding capitalist theft. :-)

>NPOV may be adequately defined.  A textbook on how alarm systems work, how 
>they're installed and how they may be disabled is not advocacy to break into 
>homes, but it can be used that way.
>
>There are two ways of defining rules:  everything is allowed unless 
>specifically forbidden; everything is forbidden unless specifically allowed. 
>You may wish to adopt the former.
>
Indeed.

>How about a growing list that starts with the following:
>- No book may describe how to perform any of the following actions:
>        i)     torture
>        ii)    murder
>        iii)   all forms of violence from either public or private sources
>        iv)   cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
>        v)    xenophobia or discrimination based on gender, age, sex, 
>pregnancy, race, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual 
>orientation, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language or 
>birth
>
This is a sweeping list that can have many loopholes.  In a few 
jurisdictions assisted suicide is perfectly legal, but there are still 
many people that consider it to be murder.  At the other end of the 
issue we could still describe sabotage that does not cause injury to any 
people. 

>You can discuss torture in an entirely neutral way (how to use a battery, 
>water and jumper leads to cause pain, for instance), but the discussion of 
>torture (as above) can be banned outright.  I would suggest that the list 
>itself needs to be maintained by someone with an international legal 
>background (no good having laws specific to any country) to offer guidance 
>and a small team to act as "constitutional court" to decide on changes to 
>these rules.  And don't defer to the Human Rights Commission, you may find 
>that Libya is in charge of it again.
>
>The above - by the by - is paraphrased from the South African constitution.
>
Why would South Africa make a reference to Libya in its constitution?

Ec