Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
It's a bit of a broad exageration to claim
ALL editors would have to
bowlderize ALL of their edits.
No, it's absolutely true. Just one goes and vandalizes the article on
the American Revolution, on one day, and you'll have school governors
freaking out.
Huh? What does the ever-present problem with vandalism have to do with
placing images potentially offensive to many behind a link instead of
inline (or what you seem to characterize as "bowlderizing")?
Both of them are unacceptable for classroom materials. Getting the well
behaved users to politely bowdlerize their contributions in order to fly
under the school board radar would not solve the problem because the
presence of badly behaved users and casual vandals will still produce an
environment too unpredictable for classroom use.
Both may pose problems to school administrators and
parents regarding the suitability of Wikipedia for children, but the
vast majority of vandalism is not much different from what is scrawled
on bathroom walls or heard in the schoolyard.
Those actions are also subject to sanction in schools.
Given that most such
vandalism is quickly removed, it is of an entirely different nature
than more or less permanent content sanctioned by the community.
Absolutely. The two are distinct problems, but both render live Wikis and
other volatile web environments unsuitable for use in schools.
Using a filtered Wiki is much more sensible.
But still don't see how anything you said here validates your earlier
assertion that all editors would have to bowlderize all their edits.
Bkonrad