On 25 July 2010 00:46, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out the correct parameters > for default IP access. Each language version of any project could make its > own determination in this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex > and kissing; Dutch and German, the full Monty with no censorship at all. > Whatever.
The sum of all human knowledge! Filtered by default to what we think local prejudices are! And never mind that pesky Neutral Point Of View. This didn't save Encarta. They did this as a marketing move. They threw neutrality out the window as a marketing move [1]. That this is a blatant distortion was problematic enough that Britannica took them up on it [2]. I recall a discussion (I think it was on wikien-l) where Microsoft's blatant warping of knowledge for marketing reasons was discussed and laughed at, as aspiring to neutrality was obviously a better way to sum up the world's knowledge, without favour. Microsoft wanted to sell CDs, so had a strong motivation to slant away from uncomfortable facts; we aren't in that business. I think aspiring to neutrality would be a bad thing to throw away and deeply compromise the mission. Enabling and encouraging people to do so, much more. That articles on a given subject in different language Wikipedias can display completely different POVs is a mark of the articles in question not being anywhere near good enough yet - it's not something to encourage and foster, as would be the consequence of what you advocate here. - d. [1] http://www.btimes.co.za/97/0406/tech/tech6.htm [2] http://www.howtoknow.com/contragates.html _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l