On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Achal Prabhala <aprabh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday 05 September 2011 03:53 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:54:44PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote: >>>> Yes, exactly! You're smart! :-) >>>> >>>> Now, one definition of censorship is : >>>> * Filtering on the basis of prejudicial labels. >>>> >>>> We're not actually allowed to censor, because censorship is evil. >>>> >>>> If we want to do this, we'll need to figure out a way to make an image >>> filter >>>> which does not use prejudicial labels. >>> Or we just reject that definition as obviously not applicable. If people are >>> choosing for themselves whether to filter and, if so, what on then it >>> clearly isn't censorship. >> [citation needed] >> >> I don't see why it isn't applicable. You have a censorship tool (your >> prejudicial labelling scheme), and you are applying it for its intended >> purpose (albeit mildly). > > Hi Kim, I find your discussion of labelling schemes (and the American > Library Associations guidelines) extremely useful and interesting. Thank > you for taking the time to explain this carefully. It has helped clear > up, for me, similar questions to the kind that Sarah and others raised > on this list earlier. > >> I think that's pretty much sufficient to cross the line into actual >> censorship. Even if you can't quite see how right now, AMA probably can >> and has. (I can easily think of some scenarios myself, if you like. In >> fact, I gave some tangential examples on this list today.) >> >> But... even if we can't agree that *that* is actually across the line, >> the same censorship tool can still be used by others for more sinister >> purposes. High quality prejudicial categorization would most certainly >> be a boon for 3rd party censors, in many many ways. >> >> So the options you are advocating are either (arguably) actual >> censorship, or (if we can't agree to that) the enabling of 3rd party >> censorship. >> >> The board themselves in their decision are very careful not to cross >> those lines. My one issue with the board is merely that I think it is >> very hard _not_ to cross the line. >> >> Of course, some people don't see the danger, and blithely cross >> the line anyway. (Thus proving my point for me much better than anything >> I could say myself O:-) ) >> >> sincerely, >> Kim Bruning >> >> citation: >> >> http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/labelingrating.cfm > > > In relation to the ALA link (which is an exemplar of concision and moral > clarity), I have a few related questions. > > 1) Would the article rating tool (Good? Useful? Reliable? etc.) or > indeed any other comparable qualitative rating/ranking (for e.g. GA/ FA > status) similarly classify as prejudicial labelling? I ask this because > in the article rating tool, I can see it fitting under the same > category, but can't see how it would lead to the same results. An > archive or library would never employ a qualitative rating like we did, > but it makes sense on a place like Wikipedia, and I guess it's because > we're not a traditionally constructed archive or library - though very > similar in some aspects.
Achal -- yes, I believe a strong case can be made that qualitative rating would fall under the ALA's intent (in traditional libraries, a book might be labeled as "award winner" -- that's an objective fact. It would not be labeled as "good".) The difference lies in our role as active editors (vs the librarian role as curators), making active choices; a reference work is a different kind of project from a library. It also lies in a difference in intent -- what the ALA speaks out about is labeling that is intended to restrict access. None of our labeling intends to restrict access to anything for anyone. -- phoebe _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
