On 4 September 2011 20:38, Kim Bruning <k...@bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:29:25PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> They won't be educated *as much*. They can still be educated. If they >> don't use Wikipedia at all because of fear of seeing things they don't >> want to see (or, because their parents fear they will see things their >> parents thing they shouldn't see), then they aren't getting educated >> by Wikipedia at all. Seeing almost all of Wikipedia is better than >> seeing none of it. > Seeing *almost* all of wikipedia introduces potential bias, which > can actually be rather much worse than seeing none of wikipedia > at all. > I think we have a rule about that. Yes (maybe). It's not at all clear that this use case should not be ignored to avoid the possibility of compromising the encyclopedia. I have to ask: if there's such a demand for a censored Wikipedia, where are the third-party providers? Anyone? This is a serious question. Even workplace filtermakers don't censor Wikipedia, as far as I know. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
