This post by David does prove that it is possible to argue, with intellectual integrity, that there are more important things at stake than getting Commons into schools.
Andreas --- On Wed, 12/5/10, David Goodman <dgoodma...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: David Goodman <dgoodma...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion > is happening > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Date: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010, 21:50 > Even more than what Ray says: > > if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but > reliable > information, who will? Other sites may feel they have > to censor; > other uncensored sites may and mostly do have little > standards of > reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to > require some > form of payment, either directly or through advertising or > government > support. If there is a audience for > compromised sources of > information, there are many organizations eager to provide > it. > > Other free uncensored reliable projects can be very > important in their > sphere, but we have an almost universal range. We're at > present > unique, which we owe to the historical fact of > having been able to > attract a large community, committed to free access in > every sense, > operating in a manner which requires no financial support > beyond what > can be obtained from voluntary contributions, and tied to > no groups > with pre-existing agendas--except the general agenda of > free > information. That we alone have been able > to get there is initially > the courage and vision of the founders, their correct guess > that the > conventional wisdom that this would be unworkable was > erroneous, the > general world-wide attractiveness of the notion of free > information, > and, at this point , the Matthew effect, that we are of > such size and > importance that working here is likely to be more > attractive and more > effective than working elsewhere--and thus our continuing > ability to > attract very large numbers of volunteer workers of many > cultural > backgrounds. > > We have everything to lose by compromising any of the > principles. To > the extent we ever become commercial, or censored , or > unreliable, we > will be submerged in the mass of better funded information > providers. > On the contrary, they have an interest in supporting what > we do, > because we provide what they cannot and give the > basis for > specialized endeavors. If there is a wish for a similar but > censored > service, this can be best done by forking ours; if > there is a wish to > abandon NPOV or permit commercialism, by expanding on our > basis. We do > not discourage these things; our licensing is in fact > tailored to > permitting them--but we should stay distinct from them. We > have > provided a general purpose feed and suitable metadata, and > what the > rest of the world does is up to them--our goal is not to > monopolize > the provision of information. We need not provide > specialized > hooks--just continue our goal for improved quality and > organization of > the content and the metadata. > > That China has chosen to take parts of our model and > develop > independently in line with its government's policy, rather > than > forking us, is possible because of the size of the > government effort > and, like us, the very large potential number of interested > and > willing highly literate and well-educated participants. All > we can do > in response is continue our own model, and hope that at > some point > their social values will change to see the virtues of it. > If some > other countries do similarly, we will at least have > contributed the > idea of a workable very large scale intent encyclopedia > with user > input. All information is good, though free information is > better. If > those in the Anglo-american sphere wish to censor, they > know at least > they have a potent uncensored competitor that it practice > will also be > available, which cannot but induce therm to a more liberal > policy than > if we did not have our standards. > > I wish very much Citizendium had succeeded--the existence > of > intellectual coopetition is a good thing. Even as it is, I > think they > have been a strong force in causing us to improve our > formerly > inadequate standards of reliability--as well as > demonstrating by their > failure the need for a very large committed group to > emulate what we > have accomplished, and also demonstrating the unworkability > of > excessively rigid organization and an exclusively > expert-bound > approach to content. I'm glad Larry did what he did in > founding > it--had it achieved more ,so would we have also. > > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net> > wrote: > > Milos Rancic wrote: > >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge > <sainto...@telus.net> > wrote: > >> > >>> Milos Rancic wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue > Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Let me know if I'm missing anything > important. > >>>>> > >>>> Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural > nature of Wikimedia, this > >>>> process shouldn't be formulated as purely > related to sexual content, > >>>> but as related to cultural taboos or to > "offensive imagery" if we want > >>>> to use euphemism. > >>>> > >>>> Under the same category are: > >>>> * sexual content; > >>>> * images Muhammad; > >>>> * images of sacral places of many tribes; > >>>> * etc. > >>>> > >>> I'm sure you mean "sacred" instead of "sacral" > :-) . > >>> > >> > >> I've just went to Wikipedia [1] (accidentally, > instead of Wiktionary) > >> to see the difference between "sacral" and > "sacred" and I've seen that > >> those words are synonyms. Anyhow, it is good to > know that "sacral" is > >> at leas ambiguous. ("Sacral" is a borrowed word in > Serbian, too; and > >> Latin words make life easier to one native speaker > of Serbian when he > >> speaks English [and some other languages] :) ) > >> > >> > > > > Borrowed words can also be false friends. "Sacral" > as "sacred" tends to > > be a more recent and specialized usage of the word, > applicable to, > > according to the Oxford English Dictionary, > anthropology and religion. > > Sometimes for me the danger is to know the language > too well, and in the > > present context that started with pornographic images > I only too easily > > imagined a series of photos about the "sacral places" > of individuals. :-D > > > >>> Censoring by default puts us back in the same > old conflict of having to > >>> decide what to censor. Given a random 100 > penis pictures we perhaps > >>> need to ask questions like what distinguishes > penis picture #27 from > >>> penis picture #82. The same could be asked > about numerous photographs > >>> of national penises like the Washington > Monument or Eiffel Tower. > >>> > >> ... > >> > >>> Voting is evil, particularly when it > entrenches the tyranny of the majority. > >>> > >> People should be able to choose categories and to > vote about them. > >> > > > > That doesn't seem very practical. The choice of > categories would itself > > be the source of disputes. If what is seen depends on > where one lives > > there would be an endless stream of variations that > could not be easily > > tracked. A 51% vote can as easily go in the opposite > direction on the > > very next day. > >> That part of proposal is not about denying to > anyone to see something, > >> but to put defaults on what not logged in users > could see. There > >> should be a [very] visible link, like on Google > images search, which > >> would easily overwrite the default rules. Personal > permission would > >> overwrite them, too. (If I was not clear up to > now, "cultural > >> censorship" won't forbid to anyone to see > anything. It would be just > >> *default*, which could be easily overwritten.) > >> > > > > I agree that users' choice should be paramount. Making > that choice needs > > to be carefully worded. Simply putting, "Do you want > to see dirty > > pictures?" on the Main Page would inspire people to > actively look for > > those pictures. > >> The point is that "cultural censorship" should > reflect dominant > >> position of one culture. My position is that we > shouldn't define that > >> one of our goals is to enlighten anyone. We should > build knowledge > >> repository and everyone should be free to use it. > However, if some > >> culture is oppressive and not permissive, it is > not up to us to > >> *actively* work on making that culture not > oppressive and permissive. > >> The other issue is that I strongly believe that > free and permissive > >> cultures are superior in comparison with other > ones. > >> > > > > Reflecting the dominance of one culture is dangerous, > and in the extreme > > has led to genocidal behaviour, and served to make the > great inquisition > > holy. > > > > It is somewhat naïve to believe that we can limit > ourselves to strictly > > factual data. There is implicit enlightenment in the > choice of which > > facts to present. The encyclopedists of the 18th > century likely thought > > of themselves as bringers of enlightenment. The 1389 > Battle of Kosovo is > > of great historical importance to Serbs, but another > group might not > > attach such importance to a battle from more than six > centuries ago and > > omit iit entirely. > > > > I agree that liberating oppressed people is not one of > our tasks. We > > should not be the ones going into China or Iran to > make a fuss when > > those governments have blocked access to Wikimedia > projects. That's up > > to the residents of those countries. Nor should we > alter our > > presentation of data when those governments insist on > their version of > > the truth. It's unfortunate that some governments > would view a > > dispassionate treatment of facts as subversive. > > > >> So, basically, if residents of Texas decide to > censor all images of > >> Bay Area, including the Golden Gate Bridge, > because they worry that > >> Bay Area values are transmissible via Internet (as > they are), I don't > >> have anything against it. If more than 50% of > Wikipedia users from > >> Texas think so, let it be. Other inhabitants of > Texas would need just > >> to simply click on "I don't want to be censored" > if they are not > >> logged in, or they could adjust their settings as > they like if they > >> are logged in. > >> > > > > Maybe Texas should not have given up its independence > in 1846. The city > > of Austin has a reputation for having more liberal > views than most of > > the state. Should it have its own criteria? Community > standards do not > > give a stable criterion. Is the Bay Area to be treated > any differently > > from the Los Angeles area? > >> But, I would be, of course, completely fine if we > implement censorship > >> just on [voluntary] personal basis and thus just > for logged in users. > >> (As well as we don't implement censorship at > all.) > >> > > Of course. If teachers or parents want to restrict > what is available to > > children they must accept the responsibility for doing > so. They can't > > go on expecting that broadly distributed websites will > do this for > > them. If the internet is an inappropriate babysitter > it's up to the > > parents to hire a better one. > > > > Ec > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
