On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:16:31AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote: > Before long you have to ban some people from editing, and that is the > equivalent of making a moral judgement. The system I proposed > acknowledges that judgement is required, but shifts the domain from > morals to a technical requirement on the format, and completeness of the > annotation of the entry. And whilst I admit that my proposal is strongly > grounded in a philosophical position, IMO it is also the most practical > because the judgement is as far as possible objective and > non-contentious.
I can imagine that there are some sites which we would not want to link to, even under your proposal. I do not have any concrete examples. Even your suggestion of disallowing anything illegal is an ethical position. There is nothing intrinsic about common law that makes it an ethical baseline. Making the decision to disallow links to illegal content, or disallowing a particular link for whatever reason we decide, is an ethical judgement. As a community it is our right to do this. There is nothing objectivist about this as long as we frame it within a relative position. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
