[WikiEN-l] Re: Reliable, selectable content

Wed Apr 6 14:25:42 UTC 2005

Poor, Edmund W a écrit:
> Tom Haws wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think if Wikipedia could provide reliable, selectable 
>>content, that humanitarian organizations like Care For Life could 
>>creatively solve the problem of distribution.
> 
> 
> We don't want forks. But our READERS often want a subset of our
> material. We established our web sites and our community to provide
> reliable FREE material for everyone in the world. (Remember, the choice
> of Wiki software was only a means to an end; a means that has served us
> amazingly well, but only a means: not the end itself.)
> 
> Our web sites will ALWAYS contain the full set of articles. So the
> articles on diverse sexual practices (copiously illustrated) will
> forever be safe from censorship. But not all our readers want to see the
> full set. They'll settle for the 99.9% that helps them fulfill their
> goals.
> 
> Poor schools in Africa: MUST they agree to accept articles about
> (largely Western) notions like [[autofellatio]] (with helpful images
> showing you how to try this yourself)? 
> 
> Did we create Wikipedia, only on the CONDITION that everyone who uses it
> read (or at least receive) every article we write?
> 
> There's a web site that copies all our geographical articles. Call it
> "censorship" or "editorial decisions", if those terms motivate you, but
> from Uncle Ed's POV they are merely CHOOSING what is important to them
> and disregarding the rest.
> 
> I'm sure somebody will decide to choose ONLY the sexological articles
> for a free Encyclopedia of Sex. I bet NOBODY at Wikipedia will accuse
> them of "censorship" for leaving out global warming or tsunami relief.
> They wouldn't think of it; they'd be gushing about intellectual freedom
> and so on.
> 
> THEREFORE, I propose that we adopt as quickly as possible a system that
> lets readers and/or publishers easily identify articles that they want
> to include or exclude. I know Magnus has done a lot of work on this, and
> I hope he will continue. 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice to have a category page that lists "all sex-related
> topics" or "all articles chosen for WikiDVD 1.0" or "articles selected
> by the GeoWorld project"?
> 
> Imagine a poor country with a non-democratic government. They want to
> educate their people, but they are unwilling to tolerate some small
> number of ideas. Should we make it DIFFICULT or EASY for them to select
> a subset of articles for an Encyclopedia of Lessitania? 
> 
> Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

Nod.

Fully agree with you Ed.

It all depends on who we consider our audience is.
Our editorial rules should be different when we consider our primary 
audience is the reader... or if it is a distributor...

If we aim directly to our reader, our editorial policies should be more 
stringent, and more adapted to local specificities. If the audience is a 
redistributor who will only publish a selection of our content, we could 
provide him with means to more quickly adjust to which content he is 
looking for.

ant