model that seems to be
evolving here, that's the problem .. acceptance is a
personal issue. If
(for example) I'm a moderator who believes firmly in
creationism, then I'm
going to "mark down" articles about evolution,
astrophysics, cosmology and
dozens of other subjects which impinge on that view.
That's just not going to fit in with the stated aims
of gnupedia (or
Alexandria or whatever). So, the first problem is
chosing who gets to be
moderator, and thereby influences which articles get
accepted for the
encyclopedia. The easy way out is to accept
everything other than the
obvious spam, commercial messages and other similar
(in this context) junk.
However, I don't think that's going to help in the
long run because it's
going to dilute the content and overall use of the
encyclopedia. After all,
it's far simpler to write an article which is short,
lightweight and has
factual errors than one which is well researched and
well written. Again,
look at Usenet as a model of what happens with
uncontrolled content.
To directly answer your question, if I was
moderator, then I'd impose my
views (and hence limits) on the articles which got
accepted. If we're
talking about pornography, then there are a few
areas which I wouldn't want
included, and would try very hard to prevent.
However, if you're thinking
of material which discusses pornography from a
social viewpoint (like the
Kinsey report), then that's clearly different.
It's a dilema which has two troublesome extermes --
(1) censorship with all
that implies and (2) freedom to include *any*
material some of which will be
illegal somewhere. Getting the balance is going to
be exceptionally
difficult and, as far as I can see, is going to
involve compromise.
The issue of potentially illegal content *must* be
addressed soon,
particularly with the suggested open framework for
submissions.
Paul
Rob Scott wrote:
Hmm yes i see what you mean now.
Do you think something thats cosidered slightly
pornographic would get accepted by a moderator?
Thats not a rhetorical question, just a question.
tsk. lawyers, damn their oily hides!
--- Hook <address@hidden> wrote: > Rob Scott
wrote :
Yes, but if our idea for moderators were used,
the
sort of people moderating would be the same
people
that read the 'pedia, so in theory cultural
differences should be ironed out.
It would all depend on how the moderator
system
worked.
Pornography is a particularly difficult issue.
The
legal definition varies
enormously, even amongst westerised countries
(look
at Denmark and the UK to
see large differences), and it vaies even more
amongst two individuals.
I've met those who consider models in swimsuits
pornographic for example.
This project either has to recognise that the
*legal* definition will trip
us up someday, or invoke the same kind of
self-censorship that the net
itself will have to deal with one day in the not
too
distant future. Note
that I'm referring to *any* material which is
legal
in one place, and not in
another - drugs and pornography are two of the
most
emotive.
The idea of not censoring material is a good
one,
but there *has* to be some
form of legal protection, if only for the
organisation which takes the legal
role of publisher. Or is that going ot be
devolved
too? Any group which
wants to allow *any* material to be published,
indexed and easily referred
to has to recognise that some of the content
that we
would like to see
available is going to be illegal somewhere.
It's
easy for westerners to
poke fun at the Chinese government for their
attitude to falungong, but it
illustrates an issue which we daren't ignore.
What are the ramifications of making publically
available something that a
powerful government or corporate doesn't like?
This
is more important that
whether ot not XML is used - it defines the
limits
for the encyclopedia (or
library, which looks to be a more accurate
definition).
Paul
--- Hook <address@hidden> wrote: > > I
disagree
slightly, in that as it is a "free"
project
I think any article that is slightly
informative
should go in. So even if it contains
nudity,
or
ideologies, or large opinions, I think it
should
be
in. Afterall, if you want a simple
"definition"
style
article you can always go to Nupedia. It'd
be
cool
if
Alexandria gave a researcher a really in
depth,
diverse resource for their subject. And I
don't
think
it should be a "vote" or you'll lose all
the
marginalised ideas and works, and it will
become a
reflection of the people who vote. If you
simply
say
every article just needs one "yes" vote to
get
through, then nonsense and blatant porn
etc.
won't
get
through, but anything else will.
It would make Alexandria a veyr rich
resource.
Sorry Tom, I'm playing devil's advocate here
..
but
define nonsense? I
could point you to a large number of Usenet
posts
which (to me) fit the
bill, but I just know that others with
different
beliefs have different
views.
Differntiating between unpopular views -
creation/evolution, UFOs/natural
phenomena etc - and opinions which, to most
people,
would seem to be so far
away from reality that they rank as fiction
isn't as
easy as it sounds.