[Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

George Herbert wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>> Recently, I read a report from a French teacher. He enjoys a certain
>>> reputation in the teaching environment, so whilst not all agree with
>>> him, he is certainly listened to by many.
>>>
>>> He made a comment which I thought was interesting.
>>>
>>> He said "Wikipedia can not be used in the French formal educational
>>> system (schools) because our nation is laic, whilst Wikipedia follows
>>> the neutral point of view. Being laic means that our schools precisely
>>> chose a certain value framework and deliberately educate the kids to
>>> hold certain beliefs and share certain values. On the contrary,
>>> wikipedia holds that all points of view must be given room. For this
>>> reason, Wikipedia is not compatible with our schooling system and should
>>> not be used as a resource".
>>>
>>> I found that approach interesting indeed. For once, the issue he was
>>> raising was not so much a question of quality or of stability of the
>>> information, or even of manipulation, but simply a statement "we want
>>> our kids to learn that certain things are true, and others are not true.
>>> Or certain things are good, and others are not good. Wikipedia is a
>>> great resource, but can't be used as teaching support".
>>>
>>> Topics that come to my mind are of course topics such as revisionism,
>>> cults, creationism, or pedophilia.
>>>       
>> Interesting viewpoint. Wikipedia is incompatible with the French
>> education system, due to a different definition of "truth". I would
>> say it's a failing in the French (and many other nation's) education
>> system, more than anything else, but then if I didn't firmly believe
>> in NPOV, I wouldn't be emailing foundation-l, would I?
>>     
> One can hold different intellectual contexts, in which some differing
> values apply.
>
> I am not sure how I'd feel if I had young kids and they got to the
> Wikipedia pages on pedophillia, for example.
>   
That issue is going to be a problem anywhere, so we shouldn't let it 
distract us from the deeper issues involved.  Articles relating to 
pedophilia are a very tiny part of what happens on Wikipedia.
> That said... The comment that the French schools are laic (is the
> proper english for that the "secular" sense, just to clarify...)
> doesn't seem to directly address why Wikipedia would be inappropriate.
>   
"Secular" is fine; "lay" would be more direct, but it's a confusing word 
in English because it needs to be used with more precision.  "Temporal" 
is another word that can be used.  Even "laïc"  or "laïcal" is perfectly 
acceptable as an English word.
> We don't argue for religion being good, or genocide being good, etc.
> We (try to) provide neutral and referenced information about religion,
> genocide, etc.
>
> The given description by the French school teacher sounds disturbing.
The whole issue is the French counterpart to the separation of church 
and state that comes up in a United States context.  As a bonus it is 
tinged with the anti-royal, anti-ecclesiastical traditions of the French 
Revolution.  A state school system does not object to telling lies to 
children, as long as they are not the wrong lies.  In the United States 
the regular recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance supports this, even 
if there is occasional debate about the presence of the words "under 
God" in its text.

State school systems exist to serve the purpose of the state in the same 
way that religious school system exist to serve the purpose of the 
religion.  They instill the principles of good _citizenship_.  That's 
not new to the French school system; I vaguely remember reading 
something to that effect by a French government minister from early in 
the Third Republic.  They forget that Godlessness can be as much a 
religion as a theology.

NPOV, when properly applied, requires us to question things, and to 
raise the possibility that there are alternatives.  If the kids go to 
far along that road they might end up questioning government.

Ec