--- Jason Williams <jason(a)jasonandali.org.uk> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:17:31AM -0800, Throbbing
Monster Cock
wrote:
Just because a viewset is shared by the majority,
no
matter how overwhelming that majority, the majority
has no authority over the dissenting individual.
wikipedia, though, is fundamentally a community based on
certain shared views. Somebody who doesn't share the
most fundamental views of a community can't be a productive
member of that community. (Views that you don't have to
share to be a productive member are, by definition,
not fundamental views. Groups of people that don't
share fundamental views aren't communities)
Anybody who wants to be in a community of different
values can start a new one.
Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the
notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for
that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and
Whales" encyclopedia.
To deny access to wikipedia who do not conform to 20th century
western academic standards would deny, oh, roughly, 90% of the human
race from participating. In which case, it would not be an
encyclopedia of the human knowledge, but rather a wanna-be
encyclopedia with only 10% of human knowledge.
It's sort of like saying: all persons have inalieanble rights yet
only citizens have access to lawyers free of charge. Pretty silly
huh?
=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com