On 4 September 2011 21:38, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes (maybe). It's not at all clear that this use case should not be > ignored to avoid the possibility of compromising the encyclopedia. > > I have to ask: if there's such a demand for a censored Wikipedia, > where are the third-party providers? Anyone? This is a serious > question. Even workplace filtermakers don't censor Wikipedia, as far > as I know.
It is worth noting here that even if they wanted to partially restrict access to "live" Wikipedia, it would currently be impractical to do so - there's no easy way of identifying all the problematic sections other than with fairly haphazard keyword matching, meaning that it's an all-or-nothing affair, and "all" is decidedly unpopular (though we do hear of it sometimes). As to why no-one is distributing a "filtered" version of Wikipedia, I think that falls more under the general heading of "where are the major third-party reusers that anyone actually cares about?" - the non-existence of a commercial filtered version is less of a surprise when we consider the dearth of commercial packaged versions at all... -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
