[Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 21.09.2011 16:53, schrieb phoebe ayers:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, phoebe ayers<phoebe.wiki at gmail.com>  wrote:>
>>> This seems like an over-hasty statement. There are many possible
>>> categorization schemes that are neutral; the ALA in fact makes that
>>> distinction itself, since libraries (obviously) use all kinds of labeling
>>> and categorization schemes all the time. The ALA and other library
>>> organizations have taken a stand against censorious and non-neutral
>>> labeling, not all labeling. If you keep reading the ALA page you linked, it
>>> says that the kind of labels that are not appropriate are when "the
>>> prejudicial label is used to warn, discourage or prohibit users or certain
>>> groups of users from accessing the material" -- e.g. a label that reads "not
>>> appropriate for children". That does not mean that picture books for kids,
>>> or mystery novels, or large-print books, aren't labeled as such in every
>>> public library in the country -- and that is the difference between
>>> informative and prejudicial labeling.
>> Would I be incorrect in pointing out that American public librarys routinely
>> exclude world famous childrens book author Astrid Lindgrens childrens
>> books, because to puritanical minds a man who can elevate himself
>> with a propeller beany, and look into childs rooms thereby, smacks too
>> much of pedophilia?
>>
> Uh... yes, you would be incorrect? I certainly checked out Astrid
> Lindgren books from the public library when I was a kid. I have never
> heard of them getting challenged in the US. Citation needed?
>
> The ALA maintains a list of books that do get routinely challenged in
> US libraries here:
> http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/index.cfm.
> Note, this just means someone *asked* for the book to be removed from
> the public or school library, not that it actually was; libraries
> generally stand up to such requests.
>
> Also note that challenges are typically asking for the book to be
> removed from the library altogether -- restricting access to it for
> everyone in the community -- as opposed to simply not looking at it
> yourself or allowing your own kids to check it out. It's the 'removal
> for everyone' part that is the problem; the issue here is freedom of
> choice: people should have the right to read, or not read, a
> particular book as they see fit.
>
> -- phoebe
As described multiple times earlier.

That is not the main problem. The categorization of the content _by 
ourselfs_ is the problem. It is strongly against the basic rules that 
made Wikipedia motivative and big. Your advocacy means more harm then 
benefit for the project. We waste an enormous effort, open new 
battlefields aside from the content/article related discussions and we 
open the door to censorship. We would set an example that censorship or 
self censorship is needed! Is it that what you try to reach?

It's your basic philosophy that sucks. It's _not_ the choice of the 
reader to hide image he don't like. It's the choice of the reader to 
hide image that others don't like! Now get a cup of tea and think about it.

Tobias