[WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

--- koyaanis qatsi <obchodnakorze at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Two points: one purely logical, the other political.
> 
> 1) the logical:
> 
> Our goal is, and let me reiterate this for those of
> you who have forgotten, to make a complete, factual,
> NPOV encyclopedia.  The only viable, though tedious
> and laborious, option in implementing filters on
> wikipedia would be to cite who believes what about
> which article--e.g. "George W. Bush believes this
> article was written by an anti-capitalist scumbag." 
> "Osama bin Laden says Allah will strike down the
> infidel who gave voice to these words." "Robert
> Mapplethorpe says this article is less explicit than
> the dreams he had when he was 12."  Otherwise, when
> we
> decide what is "explicit" or "controversial," we
> will
> be labeling the articles with a POV.  It may be a
> common POV, or an uncommon POV, but it will be a
> POV. 
> It will, furthermore, be the "official" wikipedia
> POV.
>  Wikipedia is not supposed to voice a POV.  Voicing
> a
> POV = bad.  Contrary to mission.  Not voicing a POV
> =
> good.  In keeping with mission.
> 
> Wikipedia is not your mother, or your thoughtful
> well-intentioned son.  It is an encyclopedia.  In
> keeping with the general purpose of encyclopedias,
> it
> presents information.  Some of you will not like
> information.  Those of you who do not like
> information
> will be at the wrong site.  Don't complain to
> Firestone because they sell tires and not pizza.

Wikipedia may not be out to protect you, and it is
certainly not its mission, but there are other reasons
for categorisation on wikipedia.

One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to
everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free
food and free speech. If we want to get it to
everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I
think optional censorship (necessary at some domain
names) is the easiest way to do this.

> 2) the political:
> 
> And, since you've brought the children into it when
> they're not relevant, let me bring *you* into it
> when
> you are:  There are people throughout the world
> dying
> of starvation, some of them so desperate for food
> that
> they look through feces for undigested kernels of
> corn.  Already I hear you saying "Whoa!  Hey!  the
> details of your miserable life are too 'explicit'
> for
> me and my 200-pound 8 year-old son, driving down the
> street in an SUV eating a McRibs Deluxe."  I say to
> you, you are the posterchilds for miseducation, for
> fear, for censorship and everything wikipedia
> doesn't
> stand for:  you've so come to love the weight of
> your
> own ignorance, that yoke on your shoulders, that you
> miss its caress when it's gone.  Go in peace, but
> please do go.
> 
> kq

Learning about sexual practices is not necessary for a
complete education. I think that is really the only
thing, along with swear words, that would need to be
censored at edupedia. Plus, this censorship is
optional at Wikipedia.

-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com