[WikiEN-l] Jimbo on Commons

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:56 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one
>>> freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission,
>>> even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the way.
>
> Notable here is this oft-repeated and rather
> weak-excuse-for-an-argument personal attack that characterises the
> opposition as just a bunch of "easily-upset people."
>
> The Free Culture argument is a valid one, try using it. The
> "easily-upset people" meme doesn't do it justice, and just sends out
> the signal that the unnecessary is being angrily defended.

I am not easily upset.  Yet some material on the wikimedia projects is
deeply upsetting to me.

We preserve these things because we have made, both implicitly and
explicitly, a decision that the unadulterated flow of knowledge is
essential to the advancement of mankind... That only through a
comprehensive understanding derived from factual information can we,
as individuals, promote the good things and prevent the bad things
according to our own personal values and priorities.

Without this underlying agenda "the sum of human knowledge" would seem
to be a worthless, even harmful, goal.

This decision is not at all neutral or universal. It may be currently
fairly common in some cultures and social circles, but it's only
recently that you could say that this kind of thinking was at all
widespread.  NPOV deals with the content of the projects, but not the
basis for having the projects.  Neutrality, free content, our
preference for rationality... these things are very specific points of
view and they are axiomatic to our operation and underlie everything
we do.

It's okay to admit this, to claim otherwise would be dishonest. Any
system must have some axioms, and it's important to know when the
limitations you are encountering are due to the axioms.