Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Self-censorship and XML data.

[Hook]

Rob Scott wrote :
> Yes, but if our idea for moderators were used, the
> sort of people moderating would be the same people
> that read the 'pedia, so in theory cultural
> differences should be ironed out.
>
> It would all depend on how the moderator system
> worked.

Pornography is a particularly difficult issue.  The legal definition varies
enormously, even amongst westerised countries (look at Denmark and the UK to
see large differences), and it vaies even more amongst two individuals.
I've met those who consider models in swimsuits pornographic for example.

This project either has to recognise that the *legal* definition will trip
us up someday, or invoke the same kind of self-censorship that the net
itself will have to deal with one day in the not too distant future.  Note
that I'm referring to *any* material which is legal in one place, and not in
another - drugs and pornography are two of the most emotive.

The idea of not censoring material is a good one, but there *has* to be some
form of legal protection, if only for the organisation which takes the legal
role of publisher.  Or is that going ot be devolved too?  Any group which
wants to allow *any* material to be published, indexed and easily referred
to has to recognise that some of the content that we would like to see
available is going to be illegal somewhere.  It's easy for westerners to
poke fun at the Chinese government for their attitude to falungong, but it
illustrates an issue which we daren't ignore.

What are the ramifications of making publically available something that a
powerful government or corporate doesn't like?  This is more important that
whether ot not XML is used - it defines the limits for the encyclopedia (or
library, which looks to be a more accurate definition).

Paul

> --- Hook <address@hidden> wrote: > > I disagree
> slightly, in that as it is a "free"
> > project
> > > I think any article that is slightly informative
> > > should go in. So even if it contains nudity, or
> > > ideologies, or large opinions, I think it should
> > be
> > > in. Afterall, if you want a simple "definition"
> > style
> > > article you can always go to Nupedia. It'd be cool
> > if
> > > Alexandria gave a researcher a really in depth,
> > > diverse resource for their subject. And I don't
> > think
> > > it should be a "vote" or you'll lose all the
> > > marginalised ideas and works, and it will become a
> > > reflection of the people who vote. If you simply
> > say
> > > every article just needs one "yes" vote to get
> > > through, then nonsense and blatant porn etc. won't
> > get
> > > through, but anything else will.
> > > It would make Alexandria a veyr rich resource.
> >
> > Sorry Tom, I'm playing devil's advocate here .. but
> > define nonsense?  I
> > could point you to a large number of Usenet posts
> > which (to me) fit the
> > bill, but I just know that others with different
> > beliefs have different
> > views.
> >
> > Differntiating between unpopular views -
> > creation/evolution, UFOs/natural
> > phenomena etc - and opinions which, to most people,
> > would seem to be so far
> > away from reality that they rank as fiction isn't as
> > easy as it sounds.
> >
> > And don't get me started on the "what is porn?"
> > issue !!  :-)  We all know
> > that one's cultural.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia
>