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

[Hook]

Depends on the moderator I suppose, and with the model that seems to be
evolving here, that's the problem .. acceptance is a personal issue.  If
(for example) I'm a moderator who believes firmly in creationism, then I'm
going to "mark down" articles about evolution, astrophysics, cosmology and
dozens of other subjects which impinge on that view.

That's just not going to fit in with the stated aims of gnupedia (or
Alexandria or whatever). So, the first problem is chosing who gets to be
moderator, and thereby influences which articles get accepted for the
encyclopedia.  The easy way out is to accept everything other than the
obvious spam, commercial messages and other similar (in this context) junk.
However, I don't think that's going to help in the long run because it's
going to dilute the content and overall use of the encyclopedia. After all,
it's far simpler to write an article which is short, lightweight and has
factual errors than one which is well researched and well written.  Again,
look at Usenet as a model of what happens with uncontrolled content.

To directly answer your question, if I was moderator, then I'd impose my
views (and hence limits) on the articles which got accepted.  If we're
talking about pornography, then there are a few areas which I wouldn't want
included, and would try very hard to prevent.  However, if you're thinking
of material which discusses pornography from a social viewpoint (like the
Kinsey report), then that's clearly different.

It's a dilema which has two troublesome extermes -- (1) censorship with all
that implies and (2) freedom to include *any* material some of which will be
illegal somewhere.  Getting the balance is going to be exceptionally
difficult and, as far as I can see, is going to involve compromise.

The issue of potentially illegal content *must* be addressed soon,
particularly with the suggested open framework for submissions.

Paul


Rob Scott wrote:
> Hmm yes i see what you mean now.
> Do you think something thats cosidered slightly
> pornographic would get accepted by a moderator?
> Thats not a rhetorical question, just a question.
>
> tsk. lawyers, damn their oily hides!
>
>
> --- Hook <address@hidden> wrote: > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>