[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[David Gerard]

On 25 July 2010 00:46, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language version of any project could make its own determination in this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex and kissing; Dutch and German, the full Monty with no censorship at all. Whatever.


The sum of all human knowledge! Filtered by default to what we think
local prejudices are! And never mind that pesky Neutral Point Of View.

This didn't save Encarta. They did this as a marketing move. They
threw neutrality out the window as a marketing move [1]. That this is
a blatant distortion was problematic enough that Britannica took them
up on it [2]. I recall a discussion (I think it was on wikien-l) where
Microsoft's blatant warping of knowledge for marketing reasons was
discussed and laughed at, as aspiring to neutrality was obviously a
better way to sum up the world's knowledge, without favour. Microsoft
wanted to sell CDs, so had a strong motivation to slant away from
uncomfortable facts; we aren't in that business.

I think aspiring to neutrality would be a bad thing to throw away and
deeply compromise the mission. Enabling and encouraging people to do
so, much more.

That articles on a given subject in different language Wikipedias can
display completely different POVs is a mark of the articles in
question not being anywhere near good enough yet - it's not something
to encourage and foster, as would be the consequence of what you
advocate here.


- d.

[1] http://www.btimes.co.za/97/0406/tech/tech6.htm
[2] http://www.howtoknow.com/contragates.html