Encyclopedias and censroship

No, I don’t want to talk about Virgin Killer; at least, I don’t want to talk about it directly. A lot of blogs were written about it and I don’t have anything to add.

I want just to say why Wikimedian community should be thankful to Jimmy. Because he is not such purist. If I need to choose between being with one open minded former (or even present) owner of one soft (or even hard) porn site (with some other [more or less] acceptable blemishes) and one purist and paternalistic academician, I prefer the first one.

Knowledge shouldn’t be censored. This is one of the significant achievements of our civilization. Naked young girl is taboo in the Western civilization, Mohamed images are taboo in (Sunni) Muslim world, some sacral places shouldn’t be seen by women at some parts of the world. There are ways for one encyclopedia to respect taboos, but censorship is not the option.

A professor who is taking cheap PR points on one censorship issue should learn something about social responsibility. Jimmy is an objectivist (usually, objectivists deny social responsibility as a concept), but he doesn’t have problems with his social responsibilites at that level.


~ by millosh on December 11, 2008.

2 Responses to “Encyclopedias and censroship”

  1. Very well put.

  2. FYI, it is not only the Sunni’s for whom images of Mohammad are taboo; same goes for Shiites. This means, for all Muslims, it is prohibited (regardless of what they actually practice).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: