Switzerland vs. Wikipedia

The more I read and learn about Wikipedia and how it functions, the more I like it.  Based on the little I've read about its founder, Jimmy Wales, I don't think I'd like him; but I like what he created.  I like his practicality and his vision.

"Neutrality" is defined in most standard English dictionaries as refusing to participate in a conflict.  Switzerland, of course, is the most famous political example of neutrality, due to its somehow being able to refuse to participate in both World Wars, even though it is a tiny country in the middle of the geographical conflict.  Quite often when I feel caught up in workplace politics, or in useless bickering, I state "I'm Switzerland", and walk away.  It saves time.

Wales defines neutrality differently.  Instead of refusing to participate in the conflict, he says that neutrality begins when the conflict ends.  In his words, "An article (in Wikipedia) is neutral when people have stopped changing it."  In other words, the "people" - in this case, anyone and everyone with internet access - have decided to stop arguing about the issue.

This makes Wikipedia a good overview of what people care about - and what they don't care about.  When they stop editing an article, or don't even have one about something, it's not important to the world in general.

Or at least to the world that uses the internet.

Now, as far as librarians go, I hear a lot about librarians being the standard-bearers for free speech, and the upholders of liberty and information for all.  Yet, I don't feel this quasi-patriotic call.  I would no more dictate what a patron reads than I would tell them what to eat; but I don't feel obligated to actively argue about it, either.  In that sense, I am neutral.  Ban what books you want; in the end, it won't stop the information from getting through.  It will just take longer and interest more people in reading them.

What I believe in is a person developing moral fiber.  I believe that they have the right to choose, and that choosing develops their character.  Taking the choice away is like trying to keep a baby from walking.  In the long run, it's not going to work, and it's harmful.  Let the baby choose to progress, to learn to walk.  Let the reader choose whether or not "Shades of Grey" is pornographic, and whether or not they want to read pornography.  I've lived in too many places where other people - mainly the government - took away such choices, to believe that it does anything but slow down the growth process of society as a whole.

So, I guess I'm still like Switzerland.  I'd rather not waste time arguing whether or not a certain military man earned three medals or two.  If I want to know, I'll research the entire situation and decide for myself.  In the meantime, I'll continue to uphold allowing others to argue, if they want.  Go for it, fellas!