Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Self-censorship and XML data.

[Rob Scott]

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.
> > >
> > > And don't get me started on the "what is porn?"
> > > issue !!  :-)  We all know
> > > that one's cultural.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > >
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia
> >
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at
> http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> > or your free @yahoo.ie address at
> http://mail.yahoo.ie
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia


____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie