Christopher wrote:
In response to Julie,
There are encyclopedias geared especially for children.
An inclusive encyclopedia should not sugar-coat, but should lay facts
bare.
And if they are unsavory, then so be it.
I don't think anyone is arguing for sugar-coating, particularly not
Julie, who has been pretty clear that she's in agreement that the
nature of the wiki process and the nature of what we're doing argues
for inclusiveness in terms of what is entered.
This is especially important for children: a LOT of
well-meaning
people lie to their children under the guise of protecting them. I
would the W be a resource for said children to discover the truth,
even if it is less than savory.
Sure, and so toward that end, I think we need do no more than what
google does -- make it a one-click easy thing to view the encyclopedia
in this way or that. If parents want to *enforce* that their children
take a certain view, they can do so in their own way, perhaps in the
same way that they do with google or other big websites.
(I.e. parents can look over the shoulder, keep the computer in the
family room, impose filtering software, whatever they want to do at
home.)
Perhaps a more useful way of thinking about this issue, and I
mentioned this earlier today too, is not in terms of a parent
attempting to dictate what their children can see. Instead think of
*me* and *my mom* sitting down to look at wikipedia together.
"Look, maw, I got my pitcher in the New Yark Times fer this here
website." (That's what you're supposed to imagine the Alabama accent
of someone named Jimbo must be like!)
"Lordy, son, look at this article about felching, oh my, that ain't
right."
--Jimbo