[WikiEN-l] One concern regarding filters

[Jimmy Wales]

A very eloquent statement.  For just this once, I'm speechless, since
I agree with everything you say here, at least at the moment, despite
the fact that I've been arguing the other side for several days now.

So I'll shut up for a little while and think this over.  :-)

Erik Moeller wrote:

> Theoretically, I have no objections against building an open filtering  
> system for Wikipedia, that is, one where several, differing standards can  
> be implemented in parallel (such as my team certification model). Of  
> course, nobody of the current developers other than myself is particularly  
> invested in that idea, so it will probably not get built unless some  
> unforseen incident allows me to spend large amount of time on the  
> Wikipedia codebase (particularly one that does not involve a kidnapping  
> and programming at gunpoint).
> 
> Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently addressed  
> in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to try to  
> spell it out more clearly.
> 
> F I L T E R S   A R E   B A D.
> 
> OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with a  
> fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that it's a bad  
> idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content, *especially*  
> in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.
> 
> If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for schools and  
> libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those filters in  
> place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these standards,  
> so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are followed."
> 
> If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge these  
> schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away with  
> banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just because it  
> discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would love  
> to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
> 
> If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not having  
> them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them.  
> Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the center of  
> a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should  
> effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of Jimbo's  
> mother.
> 
> And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use (I  
> don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By endorsing  
> fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the opponents  
> of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia, they have  
> built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing any  
> content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of it  
> altogether?"
> 
> Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia.  
> Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more open and  
> tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important enough to  
> have such an effect.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l