I use Everything as a sort of primitive quest for information. I will sit and run through hundreds of random nodes each day, and in them will find factoids, social commentary, ranting, angst, historical information -- and what is more, I will find them all mixed together.

Through the use of Everything, I can look up a term that I am unfamiliar with, and find not only its meaning within the context I am interested in, but also how people feel about it. This fascinates me to an incredible extent. I can discover that an obscure phrase is used as a piece of slang in the midwest, as well as being used by New York nurses to describe chest wounds and also that it is the motto for a small pizza place in Britain. And not only that, but I can read write-ups both positive and negative about that pizza place. At least, that's where we're headed. With a few quick jumps, I can even discover what sentiments and notions are held about the Midwest, or find criticism of the renumeration for those nurses. On Everything, factual information can stand right there beside sexual fantasies. This is amazing.

Everything is an encylopedia of words, phrases and thoughts which incorporates point of view. This, to me, is its value.

It seems this is not a universally held opinion, though. Nodes are downvoted or even nuked for portraying opinions that are not politically correct. If someone elucidates quite clearly on a subject, and that subject is controversial, we have a problem. The knee-jerk reaction is to do away with it, remove that blemish from our sparkling white treasure trove.

But then, how will we learn anything? Learning is a process which involves the deciphering of contrary theories and opinions. If content on Everything becomes homogenously PC, we are missing half of the equation. Disagreement should not be grounds for invalidation. Nodes should be judged on their factuality if they are factual nodes. They should be judged on clarity if they are opinion nodes. If you are incapable of judging thusly, you should hold onto your votes and use them when you are capable. The purpose of an opinion node is to display, clearly, an opinion. If it does this, it has served its purpose. I'm not asking that these nodes be upvoted simply for controversy, or that they be cooled for it. Rather, a tactful pass-over would be in order.

With Everything, we've gone beyond the point of protective censorship. This is not a place to educate your children, it is a place to discover the wide variety of human beings that exist out there, in the course of gathering knowledge. It is a place to be alternately amused and repulsed. If you remove the ugly bits, you're left with a very pretty and completely false view of the way the world works.

If you disagree with an opinion, write a response node. Then, with no down-voting due to ideological differences, let the masses decide which of the write-ups is the most lucid and accurate through abstaining from voting for the one with which they disagree, or voting for the one which they believe best expresses a viewpoint. It wouldn't even be as much of a problem if people simply voted up those they agreed with and let the rest alone. At least then we wouldn't need to worry about groundless nuking and discouraged contrarians.

In address to the common concern of whether or not there is even censorship: Downvoting for any reason other than falsehoods or lack of clarity is, in essence, a call for censorship. The editors are flagged and notified that people want this node removed. Yes, the ultimate decision rests with them, and yes I'm sure that they are all fine and upstanding people. The fact remains that even those people who are fine and upstanding can allow bias to creep into them, or be too tired to react with anything more than instinct.