Filtering allowed

WASHINGTON STATE: High Court Rules Libraries Can Use Internet Filters

The state's Supreme Court ruled that public libraries can use Internet filters to block content.
In a 6-3 ruling Thursday, the court said public libraries have discretion about which Internet content to allow, just as they decide which magazines and books to offer.
The majority said libraries don't need to completely remove Internet filters and can provide access to websites containing constitutionally protected speech if requested by an adult.
But a blistering dissent by Justice Tom Chambers argues that the ruling restricts constitutionally protected speech.

—Associated Press

Try not to gloat

Surely, obviously, clearly, librarians will be among the many that will be, some openly, many covertly, gloating, saying, perhaps just thinking, I told you so.

Yet, let not sanctimony be thy refuge.

Wikipedia, one of the 10 most popular sites on the Web, was founded about eight years ago as a long-shot experiment to create a free encyclopedia from the contributions of volunteers, all with the power to edit, and presumably improve, the content.

Now, as the English-language version of Wikipedia has just surpassed three million articles, that freewheeling ethos is about to be curbed.

Officials at the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit in San Francisco that governs Wikipedia, say that within weeks, the English-language Wikipedia will begin imposing a layer of editorial review on articles about living people.

The new feature, called “flagged revisions,” will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version.

The change is part of a growing realization on the part of Wikipedia’s leaders that as the site grows more influential, they must transform its embrace-the-chaos culture into something more mature and dependable.

It is popular, and often the first result in a search. But ...

Although Wikipedia has prevented anonymous users from creating new articles for several years now, the new flagging system crosses a psychological Rubicon. It will divide Wikipedia’s contributors into two classes — experienced, trusted editors, and everyone else — altering Wikipedia’s implicit notion that everyone has an equal right to edit entries.

And for seven months beginning in November, The New York Times worked with Wikipedia administrators to suppress information about the kidnapping of David Rohde, a correspondent in Afghanistan, from the article about him. The Times argued that the censorship would improve his chances of survival. Mr. Rohde escaped from his Taliban captors in June, but the episode dismayed some Wikipedia contributors.

Who perhaps might have said, had he not escaped, or had his head been cut off, that it was the bad guys that did the horrible deed, not them.

Cyber study sites

Search power

It's easy to become jaded, or complacent, about the depth and volume of information available at the click of a button or the push of a key, yet, every once in a while, I am reminded that there is indeed an immense amount of digital information available.

I've been listening to a CD: Big Joe Turner's Greatest Hits. The listing of personnel for different tracks has some entries of "unknown", and I wanted to see if I could get deeper than that. I entered a search statement in Google: new york november 3, 1955 joe turner session. First hit was Atlantic Records Discography: 1955 - session index. It's part of the Jazz Discography Project.

Unfortunately, it does not include any further information than what the CD sleeve has; nonetheless, it is really neat that that information is online.