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

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

not get rid of it altogether?"

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

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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l