Wikipedia e os direitos. Livre, mas não engajado.

Do meu Facebook, troca de mensagens com Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia)
a tradução resumida vai no post seguinte

From Chile: a question not asked in the class at the U today

Between Jimmy Wales and You

Lucas Tavares

November 21 at 12:31am

Jimmy,

Its probably a little late to ask a couple of questions considering I kept my mouth shut in the 4hr conversation at the Masters class here in Santiago on Thursday, but I still have to give it a shot.

You started off sharing with us the Wikipedia vision and mentioned a couple of times that wiki is freedom of speech and that access to knowledge is a fundamental human right. I couldn’t agree more.
However, if knowledge is a right, shouldn’t Wiki do more with its social tools and community? I am not sure exactly what and, of course, putting such powerful tools for free and free use to all is already very significant. But it seems to me that, if I understood correctly, Wikipedia is more about free speech (fundamental) (in the sense that anything goes as long as it shows some respect for others) than the right to information that, at least in Brazil, we tend to relate to the fulfillment of other rights: one needs to know that he has the right to medical care, a decent education, to food etc. before he can exercise that right.

As I write more than a couple of questions popped up, but since I said two I’ll stop after the next one. One of the issues being discussed in the web, at least in media circles, is that too much information is not good (here’s a link twitted by jay rosen on the subject: http://is.gd/8d2u - its long and I haven’t read it all…). Do you think Wikipedia is helping create an overload of info (and the Muppet Wiki…)? Is that a problem? I guess from your 2500 facebook friends that no, but…

To end, thank you for the class. It was very interesting and thought-provoking.

Best, lucas


E o Jimmy respondeu:

Well, I am not sure what we can do really, either. I think there is an important distinction to be made though between "positive" and "negative" rights. I don't think people have the right to medical care, education, or food, not in the fundamental sense. You can never have a "right" which permits you to force other people to provide you with things.

Instead, fundamental rights are about rights to be free from interference, and we aren't even to that level yet with access to knowledge. It's a complex philosophical point, perhaps, this about "negative" and "positive" rights, but an important one for me.

In terms of information overload, I think it's mostly nonsense, but if anything, Wikipedia is helping with it. The whole point of an encyclopedia should be to summarize, to help reduce the volume of "information" while increasing the volume of "knowledge".

But yeah, if there is an information overload, Muppet Wiki is certainly to blame! :-)

E eu :

Jimmy,

thanks for the time and thoughtful answer. I agree its a complex philosophical question and that there is a lot to debate on negative and positive rights and so forth. I think there are also "developed" and "developing" world - these are far from being the best terms to define where I am getting at, but I think they get the point across - angles to the question. The right to education, food, etc. is not the right to be given stuff "for free", is the right to be given the knowledge, tools etc. necessary so you can obtain them by your own effort. But I'm sure you've heard all this and Ill spare you of that and the other questions I have on other subjetcts...

and maybe I should start doing my part and helping edit wiki...or get a blog!

On information overload, dude, nobody could blame the Muppets. oops, did I?

best, lucas

PS - I am thinking of sharing your answers with others and imagine that wouldn't be a problem. But please let me know if it is.

E a resposta bye-bye do Jimmy

sure :)