One dictionary (AHD4) defines "censor" as:
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to
remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise
objectionable. 2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal
mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a
risk to security. 3. One that condemns or censures. 4. One of two officials
in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising
public behavior and morals. 5. Psychology The agent in the unconscious that
is responsible for censorship.
and "censorship" as
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring. 2. The office or authority of
a Roman censor. 3. Psychology Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or
feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.
In both cases, "censorship" carries the implication that there is some
clearly identifiable _authority_, usually a specific _office_ and sometimes a
single official; e.g. the Lord Chamberlain or the Hays Office or the NBC
Standards and Practices office or the New England Watch and Ward society or
or the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith or the MPAA Ratings Board.
I think the use of the term "self-censorship" muddies the waters. It's NOT
the same thing.
Hi Folks
The IP 62.252.192.12 is a transparent proxy server, owned by the UK cable
company NTL.
It is presently blocked by Jayjg: Autoblocked because you share an IP address
with "JonGwynne". Reason "violation of 3RR".
Could someone unblock this IP please?
Jake
Tony Sidaway said:
"geni said:
>> Someone informed me that the law of Florida doesn't allow us to get
>> rid of the bit of child porn at [[Lolicon]]. Perhaps we should get a
>> second opinion from the Foundation's lawyers. I would be happy to see
>> that trash off the website; at least the autofellatio guy is a
>> grown-up doing it for fun.
>
> US law allows simulated child porn at present (ie drawings, cgi, young
> looking models etc).
>
Well I won't make a big deal of it, but I do think it's absolutely vile."
No it is gross, but at least it's not a photo. I must say I'd never heard
of Lolicon until I saw went to that page and saw this just now.
I learn something new every day...
One point though: Florida is not the world so I'm nt sure why its laws are
getting so much attention here....
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Daniel Pink's WIRED article about Wikipedia, "the self-organizing,
self-repairing, hyperaddictive library of the future," has hit the
shelves.
Titled "The Book Stops Here", the six-page piece opens with a picture
of Jimbo gazing levelly over a large stack of Britannica volumes and
-- are those the 2001 Florida Statues? It follows up with a set of
beautiful sketches of six active wikipedians (Angela, Bryan Derksen,
Carptrash, Kingturtle, Ram-Man, and Raul654), whose stories are woven
into the article.
Pink deals quite well with the nuances and motivations of the en:
community, and the Wikipedia healing factor. However he all but
ignores other languages (the article's one real flaw), and makes no
mention of Wikimedia, New York, or other gatherings. He also
demonstrates a Pelligrinesque affection for the term "God-King" (the
subject is a quote from the article).
More : http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj/2005/02/17#a797
Cheers,
SJ
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sj
A long section of the Wikipedia article on John Negroponte, Bush's
recent appointee to the newly-created position of "intelligence czar",
was cited by Washington journalist Sam Smith in the 17 February edition
of his email newsletter "Undernews".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negropontehttp://www.prorev.com/indexa.htm
"Look what the cat dug up: [[User:NSM88]]"
For someone who was only in Wikipedia for about 2.5 hours ,NSM88 has
certainly created a lot of fuss here.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=NSM88)
What if two of them had come by....
Incidentally, if this guy did blow in from the Stormfront, then there seems to have
been a change of mind over there. Here's a St Valentines Day note that appeared there:
"The only solution is to setup our own wikipedia, which is called a fork and to set it up with the idea of promoting neutrality, balance and a wide range of point of views. Not to mention keeping a very close eye on Jewish topics and people suspected of being jew biased."
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
"Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what
I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community
it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I
won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop
recommending it to most of the people I currently
recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage
children, given my work in a high school). You can
call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the
names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will
let you), but those are the cold hard facts."
I agree with these sentiments, James.
I won't go into details, but I went through the experience of being called
a Nazi for opposing a porn link once, and the culprit even got the backing of
some sysops for doing that.
I agree also with what you said about Nick Berg in another post.
I know that it was debated at length here, but the decision to have
and retain that graphic photo of his severed head and links to sites
showing his murder is something I label a disgrace. In addition to its
unsuitable for minors nature, this decision would also have suited the
objectives of the terrorists who wanted this to be shown throughout the
world. It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists, especially
ones who are as ruthless as these.
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Sorry, I get mine in digest form -- I'm sure I'm
breaking a thread.
Tony's reply to me included the following:
> In my opinion we should just stick
> it into "What
> Wikipedia is not". Wikipedia is not a
> classroom-friendly environment.
If this is true, Tony (and perhaps it is), I think
it's sad. Part of the vision Jimbo often shares is
the idea of sending Wikipedia to poor schools in
developing nations -- I'd hate to think we were
abandoning that dream. If we are, maybe I need to
take some time and think about what I'm really doing
at Wikipedia: granted, the ideal of zero censorship is
its own noble enterprise, but is it the noble
enterprise I signed on for? A difficult question. I'm
not advocating paranoia (deleting all sex-related
articles and pretending humans are born under
cabbages). I'm suggesting that there is a difference
between an article seriously detailing what a sexual
practice is and an article with a picture of a man
sucking his penis. The first one I can see in a
school -- perhaps a liberal-minded school, but a
school nonetheless. I can't really envision a school
where the picture is acceptable. Maybe I'm not
imaginative enough.
David Gerard commented in reply to me:
> What other classes of photos would you require be
> links rather than inline
> in this case, and would the planned option to have
> images as either links
> or inline be of use in this context?
>
> - d.
David, I'm not completely clear what you're asking me.
If I understand you correctly, I'd argue that any
explicit depiction of violent killing or dismemberment
would also qualify as a linked photo topic. Again,
it's not because Wikipedia should describe in detail
the horror of what humanity does to humanity. It's
that seeing it visually depicted can be overwhelming.
We should absolutely talk about Nick Berg. We should
absolutely give people the opportunity to watch a
video of what happened to Nick Berg. I don't think it
therefore follows that we need to stream that video
into the article directly. The goal is to educate and
inform. If people honestly can't see a
difference....well, I'm baffled, and I guess I'll have
to think about how to explain the distinction. And
the suggested option would be a good one, David,
assuming that the default was to link. If the default
is "inline", that means that most of the users we'll
drive off will be driven off, since they'll see
whatever image shocks them before they discover the
toggle switch in "my preferences".
Christiaan said in reply to me:
> > sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm
> afraid I'll have to
> > stop recommending it to most of the people I
> currently recommend it to
> > (normally families with bright teenage children,
> given my work in a
> > high school).
>
> If they're bright I'm sure they'll make their own
> way here.
>
> Christiaan
I'm sure they will, Christiaan. I'm not suggesting
that what I do is all that remarkable. But I am sure
we all do recommend the site to others (I'm personally
responsible for about a dozen people knowing and
relying on Wikipedia for information, though sadly all
refuse to edit -- I'm sure most of you have invited
many more than I have), and so I think it's legitimate
to ask us all to consider whether we will still do
this.
Recently, in my area, the publically owned television
station (a type of tv called "Public Access" in my
area) banned a program from its channel that was
broadcasting pornographic images (the program was
called "Mike Hunt TV"....say it a few times fast if
you don't get it). "Mike" argued that the airwaves
were public, and he had as much right as the next
person to say and show what he liked on his program.
Personally, I ended up disagreeing with him: no one I
know watches the informative programming on Public
Access, mostly because it has become known as a home
for pornographic images and lunatic POV rants. I'd
like it if Wikipedia didn't become Public Access -- if
people didn't worry about clicking a Wikipedia link at
work or in front of their kids (just as people in my
area now don't often click to Public Access to see
what's on....because they fear they know exactly what
will be on).
Are we making a usable encyclopedia, or an experiment
in free speech and democracy? We seem to keep saying
we're an encyclopedia project. Well, if we are, I
think we need to ask ourselves how to reach the
broadest possible audience with the most possible
information. If that's not the goal of an
encyclopedia, I don't know what is. And it seems to
me that providing linked images provides almost the
same breadth of information, while improving the size
of our audience by a measurably larger amount.
Thanks for taking me seriously -- always makes me feel
better, even when everyone disagrees with me. :-)
James R.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
>
> The image in question is a cartoon of a little girl with her bare
> bottom
> exposed. That's all, just her bare bottom. I don't know about Florida,
> but
> commercials for baby products in California *very* often show the bare
> bottoms
> of very young children (real ones, not cartoons).
That's exactly what I thought, too, and I went into a long rant in a
discussion saying it was no different from the Coppertone girl and what
was the big deal.
Than I got an email from someone pointing that I was wrong. There was a
detail in the picture that I had not noticed, even though it is fairly
obvious. It's blue.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Anthere is entirely right about RK's notification -- I
botched it badly, and have apologized about four
times, but I'll do it again if necessary. No
sanctions should apply to RK for any editing of
Judaism-related articles prior to his having been
informed upon his return. However, RK, I hope you
will consider calming your rhetoric about the
allegedly unusual punishment levied against you.
Theresa has given you excellent advice which I hope
you will take. If you don't want to appeal to the AC,
talk to Jimbo -- if he feels you were unfairly treated
(which I think you implied in your comment about an
email you received from him), surely he has the right
(some would say the responsibility) to reverse the
decision. Either way, I am sure that both the AC and
Jimbo would appreciate your handling the matter as
calmly as possible -- I certainly wasn't "out to get
you" when I voted on the arbitration decision against
you, and I doubt other arbitrators were either. If we
truly erred in our decision, I have faith it will be
remedied.
Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what
I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community
it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I
won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop
recommending it to most of the people I currently
recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage
children, given my work in a high school). You can
call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the
names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will
let you), but those are the cold hard facts.
And I have to be honest: I will probably not choose to
introduce my students to Wikipedia with a class
project (as I had hoped to do) if the photos are
displayed inline. Too many questions to have to
answer to administrators (real-life school ones)
about. Again, you can call us censorious or
narrow-minded or anything you like, but as long as I
want to call myself employed, I'll have to live that
way. I don't know if you think Wikipedia will lose
much by my ceasing to advocate it to every man, woman,
and child I talk to. I'll let you decide for
yourself: certainly I don't think it's much of a
threat in strictly numerical terms (it won't affect
Wikipedia's pocketbook or editor population by more
than a few hundred bucks or a few editors either
direction)! But it's the reality of the situation,
and I think all the talk about browsers, etc.
(frankly, I think 90%+ of our reader population either
doesn't know how to shut off photos or considers it
too great a hassle for WP to be worthwhile, but that's
unsubstantiated guesswork) ignores the truth of the
situation.
Noble principles are fine and all that, but even the
most remarkably open free speech laws recognize that
there are some kinds of speech not suitable to all
occasions. Now go ahead and yell at me -- if you want
ammo, I use IE and subscribe to Christian moral and
ethical principles. I'm sure someone can make use of
those against me. :-)
All my best to all of you, who keep my inbox full and
my brain moving. I wish you good fortune this cold
February,
James W. Rosenzweig
jwrosenzweig(a)yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com