[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization

Wed Nov 13 17:54:19 UTC 2002

--- Steve Callaway <sjc at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> This is a very dangerous area indeed and a seriously
> slippery slope. I can
> see the arguments for it but the obverse side of
> this coin is that if it's
> possible to introduce sexual censorship in this way
> it is entirely
> conceivable that political censorship could be
> attained by a similar
> mechanism. This is NOT a genie to be let out of the
> bottle. There is enough
> political and social hypocrisy and outright
> political propaganda in the
> corpus of Wikipedia already without introducing
> convenient new mechanisms
> for the thought & ideas police.

Indeed it is very dangerous. For how would we decide
which articles are to be put in the list of "to
filter" or not "to filter"?

But isn't that ''filter'' somehow already on, when
some people complain for some titles/articles and ask
them to be removed because they find them offensive
???

What is better
- that articles are not there at all, because too many
people threaten to leave if they are and fight for
them to be removed.
- that articles are here, but might be put in a
"special" list in case the readers really find reading
them too much to bear
- that articles are here, free and open, but that the
encyclopedia is not used because too offensive.

Well, it was just an idea to support one side. I think
their point of view and sensibility is important to
consider and deserve attention. Cultural differences
on sexual matters can be very high.

On political matters, neutrality can be approached by
stating facts and explaining every point of view.

Neutrality on sexual matters cannot be reached through
showing all point of views ;-)

Maybe is it that giving all the details, the
pictures...somehow is forcing a point of view on
'sensible' (no judgement value here) person : forcing
on them the point of view of those with tough-skin and
'liberal' education toward kids.

Maybe a two-level reading could solve the matter - one
expurged, and one not. With the choice for the
expurged one.

Again, I know this is dangerous in terms of
censorship. I agree. Still, that ought to be adressed.

(My own level of tolerance is pretty high on the
sexual scale - hope there is no misleading hint here)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2