Re: [Bug-gne]Two official "tiers" of moderation

[Bob Dodd]

Another way to view it may be to look at how the copyright libraries
handle such material. They take all published material, but their
"public" face to the world ensures that highly contentious material is
handled seperately. It's why you need a jolly good accademic reason
before the British Library will let you see its back catalog of
"Razzle" :-))

GNE could do something similar, presenting it's content only as an API
to classifiers, so that people don't accidentally stumble upon dubious
content - they have to actively choose a classifier who provides that
type of content. GNE would then be viewed as two projects: an archive,
and (at least) one classifier to present its content to the world.
GNE's own classifier could then be a strict censor of certain types
material, leaving *anyone* who wants to, to provide a more expansive
classification (but it wouldn't be part of GNE, and hence you would not
have GNE's name associated with presentation of porn, neo-nazi material
etc.) Archiving such material, as in a digital copyright library, yes.
Presentation of the material, no.

/bob

--- Tom Chance <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think the problem here is that in principle (IMHO)
> Mike is correct in saying we shouldn't influence GNE
> in any way, other than to maintain a true freedom
> about it. But there is the problem that 99% of people
> will violently disagree with you. I was having a
> discussion about this with my dad, and he said he was
> appauled that I wanted people to be able to put on
> racist or pro-Nazi articles!
> 
> The thing we have to consider here is first and
> foremost who are we making this resource for?
> Ourselves, or the public? If it is for the public,
> then we have to be aware of their feelings without
> compromising the ethic of GNE. The only way I can see
> of doing this (sidestepping legal/mirror issues for a
> moment) is to allow everything we can onto it, and
> explain VERY carefully, and succinctly, on our front
> page, what GNE is all about. We have to be quite sure
> that GNE is not in any way associated with the views
> posted on it, and ensure people see that we mean only
> to say that every opinion deserves to be published no
> matter how bad/idioticit may seem. We have to impress
> on people, basically, that we are trying to provide
> the world with a very full view of the world, but we
> are not trying to promote, or give limelight to,
> minority views. We are giving every view an equal
> showing.
> 
> If we could take that as a starting point, then worry
> about legal issues, that'd be a good step. From there
> on I would suggest GNE has two official
> categorisations:
> 
> 1) The complete GNE
> 2) The socially "acceptable" GNE.
> 
> So if people want to browse a resource without
> articles on how to rape, or how to beat up a black,
> then they can, and they won't ever have to read the
> other articles. They will still get a lot of worth out
> of GNE though, worth that they cannot find elsewhere.
> If a person wants to browse the entirely uncensored
> resource, then they can do so.
> 
> In terms of moderation, I would say they are both
> governed by the same pool of moderators. When a
> moderator views an article, instead of my proposed one
> "submit" button, there could be two: 
> 
> 1) Submit To GNE
> 2) Submit To GNEC           <---GNE Censored
> 
> All moderators would be informed of the rules involved
> in each one:
> 
> 1) GNE... accept anything that is "free", not
> dangerous to the resource (like viruses and binary
> bombs etc.), and is comprehensible
> 
> 2) GNEC... as above, but in addition we run the
> "informative" and not "damaging to people today" rule.
> 
> 
> Will that be o.k.? Because I can see an equal validity
> in both sides of the argument.
> 
> 
> Tom Chance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Mike Warren <address@hidden> wrote: >
> Alexander Braun <address@hidden>
> > writes:
> > 
> > > Mike, to answer your question, what should
> > considered to be harmfull
> > > to other people: [..] But I give you an example of
> > harming, which
> > > happened just a few weeks ago: In Munich a group
> > of skins had beaten
> > > up a Greek person. Two Turks were helping him, so
> > he did survive.
> > 
> > Yes, this is harm.
> > 
> > > Some days later a French site promoted to beat up
> > or kill these two
> > > Turks. And this is definitely harming.
> > 
> > No it's not.
> > 
> > > The thesis that black and white people are
> > different is just
> > > rubbish.
> > 
> > True.
> > 
> > > But it is not harming.
> > 
> > True.
> > 
> > > If the same thesis contains passages
> > > demanding to enslave blacks again, or "at least"
> > to beat them, kill
> > > them or discriminate against them in any other
> > form does harm.
> > 
> > The essay itself would not be harm; only if people
> > acted on it would
> > it become harmful (and such people should certainly
> > be punished).
> > 
> > > The bottom line of this project is to protect
> > freedom. We can not
> > > protect freedom by protecting people fighting
> > freedom.
> > 
> > Why not?
> > 
> > > It might be good to have a revisionist paper on
> > GNE (if it would not
> > > be illegal), so a good historian could show the
> > world why this is
> > > rubbish.
> > 
> > I agree.
> > 
> > > It's definitely not good to promote harm to people
> > - that's why we
> > > here, isn't it?
> > 
> > I agree that it's not good to promote harm. I
> > disagree that people who
> > *are* promoting harm should be silenced. Should we
> > publish such things
> > at GNE? If we do not, then we are inflicting
> > editorial control on the
> > GNE repository, and I think the only place where
> > such control should
> > exist is at the classifier level. This gives people
> > who disagree with
> > ``our'' editorial policy the chance to make their
> > own.
> > 
> > If we were to inflict a single editorial policy on
> > GNE, then what's
> > the point? Why not just merge with Nupedia and get
> > our editorial
> > opinions heard there?
> > 
> > > Of course you are right, that it might be a quite
> > subjective
> > > manner. So the only solution (imho) is to discuss
> > some basic rules
> > > which people have to follow, if they want to post
> > their articles.
> > 
> > This would be a useful discussion for a classifier
> > project.
> > 
> > > We did this on the technical area by preferring
> > only-text articles
> > > against M$-Word articles.
> > 
> > But this doesn't silence anyone, or force them to
> > use different tools!
> > 
> > > I can't see why the use of a non-free tool
> > producing non-free format
> > > should be worse than promoting to kill people. It
> > would lead the
> > > project ad absurdum.
> > 
> > We shouldn't care what tools people use. But if we
> > accept formats
> > which we cannot convert using free software, then
> > our freedom is
> > compromised. As has be pointed out re: .GIFs, it
> > might indeed be
> > possible to accept them and use a free-software
> > program to convert
> > them to PNGs for storage. IANAL, though.
> > 
> > > GNE got it's rules about linking. it got it's
> > rules about formats
> > > and these rules are not only good they are
> > necessary [..]
> > 
> > The are necessary only as far as freedom is
> > concerned.
> > 
> > > so just let's take the rules Tom made up,or the
> > one I made up or
> > > both and discuss them. (Personally I like Tom's
> > rules more - they
> > > emphasize the same aspect but sound quite more
> > free)
> > 
> > I don't like the rules which limit articles based on
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/