Jimmy-
Erik argued the other day that if anyone tries to
filter wikipedia,
they will just look stupid, and that our power can do a lot to
discredit the idea of filtering. That argument gave me pause.
But here's the counterargument -- if Wikipedia has
no protection at
all for some things that the majority of people would find, not just
mildly offensive, but shocking, *for children*, then we become the
perfect poster-child for the pro-filtering crowd.
I can see it now: "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WE NEED FILTERS TO HIDE
WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA, FROM THEM!"
Oh yeah. That sounds reaaaally dangerous. Parents will run in terror when
they hear our name. Just think - our frontpage even features Martha
Stewart. And monkeypox.
They can put forward the argument: "Yes, it would
be wonderful if we
lived in the kind of world where filtering the Internet for schools is
unnecessary. But here's a good example: a site that appears to be
innocent and harmless but which actually has graphic and explicit
depictions of highly unusual sex practices. We even found one photo
of female genetalia that was lifted directly from a porn site."
And many people will quite reasonably buy that
argument.
What *is* the argument here? That all 130,000 articles of Wikipedia have
to be blocked because there are a dozen that describe "highly unusual sex
practices"? Do you really think that is convincing?
I believe that you overestimate the prudery of the average American
because you are so used to feeling like a radical ;-). CNN just had a
frontpage poll about whether the state should get involved in consensual
sex among adults. 90% were against it. Sure, there's a lot of panic
regarding sex and children. But often it's really just the well organized
religious right screaming at the top of their lungs and the rest keeping
their mouth shut. And I think if these 10-20% started screaming about the
dangers of Wikipedia, the remaining 80-90% might actually have something
to say.
But if we are just complacent, if we just blindly accept the so-called
power of these pressure groups, then *we* contribute to giving them that
power. We are among those who shut up and not among those who speak up. If
you are such a radical, Jimbo, why are you so eager to give them what they
want?
Have you ever actually shown your mother Wikipedia? I think she would like
it. Mine certainly did.
Regards,
Erik