Re: [Bug-gne]the problem of illegal content vs. freedom

[Mike Warren]

Jimmy Wales <address@hidden> writes:
> Mike Warren wrote:

> > I think the classifier systems will largely make this irrelevant;
> > very few (if any) would include such articles, and the ones which
> > did would likely include meta-comments indicating the lunacy of
> > the article.

> But this doesn't address my point.  Richard Stallman has stated that
> he doesn't want, for example, holocaust denying articles to be
> served from his machines.  So you shouldn't even include them to
> start with.

Why does RMS get to dictate content?

> Perhaps the solution is to come up with a simple system (XML, RDF?)
> whereby the Ku Klux Klan can place articles _on their own servers_,
> indicating to passing searchbots that they have GNE-format articles
> available.

This could be one solution. I would tend to shy away from distributed
content-storage if at all possible, simply because this would
inevitably mean that some articles would be lost forever if a
particular server went down.

> I think this is a very terrible abuse of language.

Yes, you're right. However, I think a giant repository of FDL or
freely-reproducible articles would be a valuable resource, even if
they include ``unpopular'' views. I see the classifiers performing the
roles of editorial control, with the GNE repository itself being a
content-agnostic resource.

> Natural language provides us with many fine distinctions, to which
> we ought to pay serious attention.

Yes; I was sloppy.

-- 
address@hidden
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A  0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD