Dante Alighieri wrote:
I'm sorry, but if other people want to censor
information from themselves
and children in their charge, that's /their/ problem, not ours. I don't
see
why we need to be held hostage to the Puritanical
views of a few people
out
there who think that it would somehow be a
disaster if a child read the
felching article. Why do their work for them? If they want a filter, let
/them/ write it. Let /them/ argue what it should filter. Let's leave
Wikipedia just the way it is.
In what we are we held hostage just by including content metadata and
allowing people a simple option for how they want to view the
wikipedia? I think such dramatic analogies would be appropriate if
our only possible course of actions were to either self-censor or let
it all hang out, but it seems to me that we have several promising
alternatives that pose a useful compromise.
Again, I ask you to think not of schools and their issues, but of me
and my issues. I'm a modern person offended by almost nothing. And
yet, I wouldn't like to be showing my mother wikipedia and say, o.k.,
here is how you edit, and over here is where people can see the recent
changes, and OH MY!!, er, well, uh, really, this isn't about porn, ma.
Well, I'm making a straight slippery slope argument. The first step is of
course, reasonable, it's the eighth step that worries me.
-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
-Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321