At 12:44 PM 6/7/2003, you wrote:
To bring it back to LittleDan's original issue: if the existence of 'felching' in the encyclopedia gets it banned from all schools, then isn't that problematic?
Or: if I can't in good conscience send something with a more delicate temperament than mine to wikipedia, then isn't that problematic, too?
--Jimbo
Not to be hard-nosed about it or anything....
Yes, if [[felching]] gets us banned from schools, that is a problem... for the schools. I don't really see it as a problem for us. The schools lose out on a source of information that, in my opinion, is unparalleled in its usefulness.
As I see it, it is up to the schools (or, more properly, the parents of the students in the schools, or the administrators/politicians responsible for school policy) to fix this problem. The problem, as I see it, is not the inclusion of felching in the Wikipedia, but that some people are /so/ narrow-minded that they will block access to the whole 'pedia because it's here.
I'm sorry, but if other people want to censor information from themselves and children in their charge, that's /their/ problem, not ours. I don't see why we need to be held hostage to the Puritanical views of a few people out there who think that it would somehow be a disaster if a child read the felching article. Why do their work for them? If they want a filter, let /them/ write it. Let /them/ argue what it should filter. Let's leave Wikipedia just the way it is.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321