[WikiEN-l] Re: Filtering, etc.

[Stevertigo]

ROFL. This is all wrong. Everyone who has suggested that there be some other
site - some other interface for WP - some screwy way of fancifully filtering
out the content - is on the wrong track.

Essentially, then the problem becomes one of syndication - of franchise.
Each article, based on its political value - rating or assertion can be a
source of divergence. If the idea is to have the same article frame
differently - under different precepts about how to deal with... then the
problem of divergence is exascerbated. Either the article is about "God" -
interfaced through the Judeo-pedia - and they get in a tiff with someone
accessing the SAME PAGE through the SATAN's Trinity Chuch interface - THIS
WILL ONLY INCREASE DIVERGENCE!!

I will dismiss ideas that deal with being a "N*e*w* Wikipedia" - with a
little different flavoring here and there.... If you get a hundredth of the
energy that WP gets, I'll be surprised. If its quarelling that worries
people, then perhaps we should have just a plain "Pacifist-pedia" - where no
controversy is allowed.

OF the two choices - a split portal system to the same DB - or an endless
serious of mindnumbing "alternatives" to the REAL DEAL - then what the hell
do you think is going to happen?

Ive remarked before about the other different ways to "fork" the Wikipedia.
I dont like getting "forked" and I dont think the Wikipedia should get
"forked" either.

-Love, Peace and Harmoniosity
-SM

> I normally wouldn't say this, because I am quite Christian myself,
> but I agree we need a 'pedia with NO religion entries, except for
> historical articles on the religion as one would find in a history
> textbook, and in the same vein NO explicit topics, or anything of
> that sort - we should have a separate, school-topics-only Wiki
> encyclopedia for use at schools or other filtered environments.
>
> The Wikipedia as a whole, as the large project to create a
> comprehensive encyclopedia, is doing quite well in that respect.
> If it wants to even implicitly support fair use and challenge
> filters, let it do so. ''However'', these cannot be the goals
> of a project that wants to serve as a research reference and
> educational source for schoolchildren. And I think that there
> should be such a project, even if it is not the Wikipedia.
>
> I see so far three (ok, 2.5) reasons to implement filters: 1) to
> protect the Wikipedia from a site-wide censor, 2) to protect those
> who shouldn't see some content (this point is debatable), and 3) to
> protect those who don't want to see some content. I realize now that
> the first reason cannot be effectively implemented without impeding
> the Wikipedia's larger goals. The second, apparently, is loaded with
> too much POV (though I still don't see why we have to ''not'' censor
> content because some people might censor ''too much''...). The third
> I still believe should be implementable. Surely there can be no
> subjectivity in labeling [[Transubstantiation]] as "Christianity",
> and people like Toby Bartel's friend (was it?) can easily block that
> for him/herself and his/her kids. Leave the "dangerous" stuff there,
> just '''allow''' us (don't '''force''' us) to block it - why not?
>
> Thus, in order to develop a useful reference for schools, I do believe
> we have to run a separate project (Edupedia, PediaPedia, WiKidPedia,
> call it what you may) with the rule of '''no''' religion, '''no'''
> explicit content, etc. - go to the [[Wikipedia]] for those. As long
> as Wikipedia is still not banned, it should suffice. But if/when
> it becomes blocked, we should be able to have the benefits of a
> Wiki encyclopedia, even behind school firewalls, NetNanny, etc.
>
> So I think at some point we'll either have to fork or implement some
> type of good Sifter - and for a school-targeted encyclopedia, forking
> the necessary content seems better. Or, we could even start from scratch
> with a new encyclopedia and have it as a separate sister project, written
> at a slightly lower reading level and focusing on a separate set of
> subjects.
>
> Is there any Sifter code available? Is there a way to download, in a
> serveable form, only selected articles without taking the entire 1GB
tarball?