--- Jason Williams jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:17:31AM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
Just because a viewset is shared by the majority, no matter how overwhelming that majority, the majority has no authority over the dissenting individual.
wikipedia, though, is fundamentally a community based on certain shared views. Somebody who doesn't share the most fundamental views of a community can't be a productive member of that community. (Views that you don't have to share to be a productive member are, by definition, not fundamental views. Groups of people that don't share fundamental views aren't communities)
Anybody who wants to be in a community of different values can start a new one.
Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and Whales" encyclopedia.
To deny access to wikipedia who do not conform to 20th century western academic standards would deny, oh, roughly, 90% of the human race from participating. In which case, it would not be an encyclopedia of the human knowledge, but rather a wanna-be encyclopedia with only 10% of human knowledge.
It's sort of like saying: all persons have inalieanble rights yet only citizens have access to lawyers free of charge. Pretty silly huh?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com