[WikiEN-l] Just to throw this out there...

[Dante Alighieri]

At 01:05 PM 6/16/2003, you wrote:
>Erik Moeller wrote:
> > I still don't follow your argument. Do you, or do you not think that
> > the proponents of filtering could plausibly argue that all of
> > Wikipedia, all 130,000 articles, need to be filtered in libraries
> > because we have some articles about "highly unusual sex practices"?
>
>No, I don't think that.  I do think that our refusal to handle this
>issue responsibly does mean that proponents of filtering will
>plausibly argue that we are a prime example of why filtering software
>is necessary and valuable in schools.
>
> > If the proponents of filtering manage to come up with a filtering
> > solution that only filters the articles they find so offensive,
> > something which I doubt given the nature of Wikipedia, then all the
> > better for them -- less work for us. And if they don't, we can say
> > that they 1) ask us to do the impossible (a lot of purely technical
> > objections against filtering have already been raised) 2) violate
> > the First Amendment by hiding 129,500 perfectly valid articles from
> > pupils because of 500 ones which they consider objectionable.
>
>This completely ignores the most probable outcome.  First, they can't
>come up with filtering software that does a good job, so our site gets
>filtered according to some very crude keyword tools.  Second, that
>they are able to convincingly argue that this is the best that they
>can do, particularly since even sites that purport to be educational
>are so irresponsible and unhelpful.
>
>My essential point is that our refusal to have standards is not a
>valid tool in the fight against censorship.  Rather it plays directly
>into the hands of those who argue that censorship is necessary.
>
>--Jimbo

Jimbo, I'm puzzled. Where is it written that Wikipedia contains content 
that needs filtering? What are these mysterious standards that we refuse to 
implement? Who, exactly, is it that should be choosing which content on our 
site is "objectionable"... and objectionable to whom? How are we 
irresponsible?

I am of the opinion that Wikipedia does NOT contain content that needs 
filtering. Ideas are both MORE dangerous and LESS dangerous than most 
people realize. Of course, the proponents of filtering universally want to 
filter the less dangerous stuff and let the more dangerous stuff through. 
(i.e., sexuality is not dangerous, but ideas like freedom/rationality/logic 
ARE dangerous... at least to people who think sexuality IS dangerous....) I 
am also of the opinion that we DO have standards, and that those standards 
are good ones for an encyclopedia.... we try to ensure that our articles 
are truthful, non-biased, and accurate. I am also of the opinion that those 
people who don't like the site should not use it. I also think that those 
people who are unwillingly blocked from using the site need to step up and 
let their voices be heard; should peak to their parents, teachers, 
government officials, clergymen.; tell them why Wikipedia is important and 
how it shouldn't be blocked. Lastly, I find the assertion that we're being 
somehow irresponsible, or refusing to handle the issue responsibly 
insulting. Holding the view that censorship is unnecessary or undesirable 
is not irresponsible.


-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at 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