tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post9101859898138354155..comments2024-03-22T12:20:48.920+00:00Comments on open...: Filtering an Inclusionist WikipediaGlyn Moodyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-80245771203586071842009-05-12T21:14:00.000+00:002009-05-12T21:14:00.000+00:00Yes, I would suggest that only the "official" filt...Yes, I would suggest that only the "official" filter of Wikipedia be called such; others would be called "Fred Bloggs' Filter of Wikibase" or something similar. It would all come down to Seals of Approval: you'd trust the filter if and only if you trust the people making it (all of this could be sorted in the background cryptographically using hashes etc., I imagine.)Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-43193236262512920632009-05-12T21:01:00.000+00:002009-05-12T21:01:00.000+00:00@Nihiltres
What is questionable is surely in the...@Nihiltres <br /><br />What is questionable is surely in the eye of the beholder.<br /><br />It's hard to take on an all encompassing remit without touching subjects that one or other group might consider questionable.<br /><br />@Glynn<br /><br />Maybe this plays into your take on trademarks.<br /><br />When is wikipedia not wikipedia? When it's a selection maybe.<br /><br />In GPL or MPL etc. software we have the freedom to take and adapt the source code, to remove chunks etc. If a project takes the code of another and reinvents it, it normally does so under a different name from the original. So wine becomes winex and firefox becomes iceweasel (unless you are Ubuntu).<br /><br />Adaption is a useful process.<br /><br />Speech or writing is more subtle than software. If we take and a quote out of context we can misrepresent, if we readers digest a novel we end up with an interpretation. What happens when we remove the associated articles from wikipedia topics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-49256911026631153412009-05-12T20:49:00.000+00:002009-05-12T20:49:00.000+00:00Well, I'm not arguing for allowing "questionable" ...Well, I'm not arguing for allowing "questionable" material, more widening the reach of Wikipedia. And in any case, the Wikipedia team could always apply *their*, official filter to produce the real Wikipedia, rather than just its raw materials.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-11032567707070202852009-05-12T17:33:00.000+00:002009-05-12T17:33:00.000+00:00No, it's not a strong argument for inclusionism: i...No, it's not a strong argument for inclusionism: it fails to take into account Wikipedia itself.<br /><br />Were Wikipedia <EM>merely</EM> a source text for reduction and vetting, then the point makes sense, but whereas Wikipedia seeks to be useful <I>per se</I>, over-reaching inclusionism isn't entirely justified. Wikipedia itself shouldn't be taking on questionable material simply because some outside group will cut it out in their version.Nihiltreshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nihiltresnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-89779771901375855862009-05-12T15:17:00.000+00:002009-05-12T15:17:00.000+00:00Because allowing others to censor in this way is t...Because allowing others to censor in this way is the price of freedom. I don't say it's good, but I think that any mechanism put in place to stop it will be worse.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-30839824905538991542009-05-12T12:10:00.000+00:002009-05-12T12:10:00.000+00:00I don't see quite how self-appointed censorship gr...I don't see quite how self-appointed censorship groups can be classed as an expression of freedom.<br /><br />The way you are introduced to a topic seems fairly important, especially for children, and wikipedia seems likely to have content that is not as biased as many other sources.<br /><br />I wonder, for example, whether the "child safe" version of wikipedia contains articles on homophobia - that would be of use to a child understanding their sexuality - or human sexual reproduction - which might help with the appallingly high teen pregnancy rate - and all the articles wikipedia links to on these topics.<br /><br />Somehow, I doubt it. Censorship always seems to me to be a way for some supposed moral arbiter to enforce their view of society on others, on the basic assumption that parents can't look after kids and adults aren't capable of making reasoned decision about what content they want to view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com