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

[Rob Scott]

This is why we need a positive only feedback, so that
people who don't agree with something or people who
don't believe something cant just mark things down


--- Hook <address@hidden> wrote: > 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.
> 
=== message truncated ===


____________________________________________________________
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