-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13/05/2010 13:01, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I don't know that reaching everybody was ever a stated goal. Being > theoretically available to everybody is a different matter... Ah, that's the part that is not clear to me. If you talk about the intrinsic properties of the Big Project, I agree that the core must be free, uncensored resources.
My concern, however, is about the interface with the real world, that is, the way this project containing information, ideas and knowledge (specifically set in the context of the 21st century, mostly english language, mostly western, mostly rich users) interacts with mankind. Allow me to explain: My current vision is that there are several main obstacles to a free interaction, for example: - - illiteracy - - no internet access - - cultural rejection - - political censorship With this context, I wonder if being theoretically available is enough, or if the Foundation and community should worry about solving or circumventing the pragmatical obstacles. I understand the debate of the last days as an example about what I call a political censorship, in a very generic meaning: an arsenal of cultural values and technological means that forbid some ideas to circulate, thus governing the minds into certain authorized or tolerated behaviours (and thoughts). I think most of mankind feel some kind of taboos are necessary to achieved a civilized society. This feeling leads to the need (and thus acceptation) of laws, which can be viewed as a legitimized form of censorship. Because of this generalized feeling towards laws, it is impossible to sum up all the knowledge of humanity without offending each of these cultural laws, and thus incommoding their believers. Abiding to the cultural laws of a community gives a sense of belonging, of identity, of security... It's a strong, common urge. Let's add to this fact that many of those laws are in the hands of "tutors" who use them as a tool to shape their "protected ones". (It doesn't matter if I agree with their values or not, I'm focused on the mechanism.) The result is that you have deciding people between the foundation projects and their potential users, deciding people that have control of the flow of information. If they lose this control they lose power and their community (or child, for example) will lose faith in the official values and may start differing. From their perspective, it's the beginning of chaos. So, back to Wikipedia an Commons. Allowing such conflicts (free universal information versus locally controlled information) would antagonize the leaders and "disturb" the society order (which may be viewed as good or bad from our point of view, but is usually terrifying from theirs). The pragmatical approach seen in the debates is to compromise enough to avoid the conflicts and keep reaching the censored masses, minimizing the compromise of principles. The idealistic approach seems to only care about the internal community. For example: > David (a real thought leader) Goodman wrote: >> If there is a wish for a similar but censored >> service, this can be best done by forking ours; But the wish to censor is not internal (except for parent maybe), thus a fork wouldn't be followed by users. It's not users who want the censorship system, it's detractors who don't want any out of their control, free access to information to begin with. My impressions from the last events is that people who believe in Wikipedia and Commons projects don't wish major changes to the censorship system that is satisfactorily self-managed by the users and editors. I think the people who feel strongly threatened by the lack of censorship on Wikipedia and Commons are whether from an opposing side or on a confused, testing phase. Because there is a war of influence, I wonder if we are robust enough to ignore the "enemies" we're creating by our very existence, given that they are influential. Fox News, Iran, China are just symptoms: what's happening here is that we're beginning to be a threat, imho, and that an escalation of hostility is to be expected the more we are successful and they become aware of us. Is it wise to ignore how the rest of the world reacts to the free access of information? Can the community thrives only on the shoulders of the people not offended by our current handling of information, or not? I don't know the answer, but I think we should be attentive and realistic enough to avoid a war, for example. That is not saying that we should change or compromise just to please. But if we choose to compromise, in this case allow some kind of censorship, forked or not, we need to know what's at stake and the dangers. Most of the libertarian communities that I know failed because they were too disturbing / annoying for the surrounding powers. There should be a constant acute perception of that. Maybe I've been too long in South America to have blind faith in our enemies, but a net with a few key nodes (which is our current organization, if I'm not mistaken) is extremely simple to disassemble. Note: my position is not that they are enemies, but that they feel like we are. I think misunderstanding is the root of wars. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL7EV7AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L56IIAOUzmSJ5p21+M2nV0RD4Vq8M 5pGWqTm5QlZoxYRDnobkrYfIbm4i4v4QLzc51TmqK2WPqpiTIA1tsPHsp3hLRTHG kJUvoPxsfgWBznUPZt2UuYwqBrNoK/LmBiExKBGVfmK7gA+eprv0C6Q4l95Uct7F VCubd2IxKFkYF0A8c5KGkaHATLXm/pbyFGNRM/1KpgSgAttCog/kapPeRG5D/hMO EMzlUJcKHBHjlbghaoGq0gew5SXJ4RJa9q5sH7u8UXMO2hoBMFh5IvdKDOE9qG9Y SJ5h6QDGKg0xx4JAtLeR3IAjCaocMBR32oY5keKnCldaorNzVBc6edOV8Jy3Kwk= =fGkc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
