Theoretically, I have no objections against building an open filtering
system for Wikipedia, that is, one where several, differing standards can
be implemented in parallel (such as my team certification model). Of
course, nobody of the current developers other than myself is particularly
invested in that idea, so it will probably not get built unless some
unforseen incident allows me to spend large amount of time on the
Wikipedia codebase (particularly one that does not involve a kidnapping
and programming at gunpoint).
Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently addressed
in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to try to
spell it out more clearly.
F I L T E R S A R E B A D.
OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with a
fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that it's a bad
idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content, *especially*
in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.
If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for schools and
libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those filters in
place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these standards,
so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are followed."
If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge these
schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away with
banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just because it
discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would love
to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not having
them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them.
Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the center of
a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should
effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of Jimbo's
mother.
And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use (I
don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By endorsing
fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the opponents
of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia, they have
built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing any
content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of it
altogether?"
Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia.
Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more open and
tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important enough to
have such an effect.
Regards,
Erik