[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

[Sue Gardner]

Alec, thanks for making that post. I know people have had these discussions for a long time (I've read lots of them), but I really appreciate you writing a long explanation of what you think.

The "no censorship" people don't tend to want to lay out their full position -- because they already have, and because I think they think it's obvious. And a lot of it is obvious. But it's better, I think, to have a full, thoughtful conversation, even if it's exhausting. Because it _is_ a critical issue, as you know.  So I appreciate you doing it.  (David Gerard did something similar on his blog the other day: I appreciated that too.)

I also wanted to say -- you know in your post where you speculate about why this is happening now, is it because of the fundraising, has someone offered board members jobs, etc.  (I know you were mostly non-serious about the jobs.)  That is a totally legitimate set of questions.  But -- I don't know if you've read the 2010-11 plan.  In it, we lay out the new revenue strategy, which focuses on "many small donations," and calls for a shift away from a "balanced approach," which includes grants and large gifts and earned income.  (We will still do some of that, but much less.). That new approach is not an accident: it's a deliberate attempt, by me and the board, after lots of thinking, to reduce the likelihood that we'll need or want to compromise due to the attitudes or desires of funders.  We want the Wikimedia Foundation to be oriented towards readers and editors. 

I want Wikipedia --everyone, I think, wants Wikipedia-- to be independent.  That's not a guarantee that we won't make mistakes.  But we want our mistakes to be honest ones, made by us, rather than being unhappy compromises that we get forced into by others.  I know that is obvious to you: I'm saying it so you know it's obvious to me too :-)

Thanks,
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com>
Sender: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:47:00 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for
	Potentially-Objectionable Content

I have no idea whether anything in here is productive or just
reiteration of the same old themes.   I doubt it will be coherent or
persuasive, but this discussion is too important not to try to say
something.   Opinions were solicited, so here's such an opinion.

I don't really know if a discussion at this point is wise,
particularly from me and my verbosity.  :).  So skip if skeptical, and
abort if you start finding my words, well, unproductive. :)
-Alec
----

> What I find not convincing is the slogan "No censorship". I think this
> is a bad argument.

Okay, I think that's my cue.   I'm definitely in "No Censorship" camp,
so let my try to explain why that argument has such pull for some of
us.

-

To begin with, please consider that  NOTCENSORED has been the law of
the land for many years and Wikipedia has prospered under it.   It's
not a new idea.

What's new is this idea that "potential offensiveness" is a threat to
us, and thus,  a valid criterion for making editorial decision.   That
would be a huge deviation from our very successful status quo.

Maybe you think it would be a good change, maybe you think would be a
bad change,  but I think we can all agree it would be a very
CONTROVERSIAL change among Wikimedians.

And when you stop and think about it, of course any such proposal is
_bound_  to be very very controversial among those very individuals
who are already deeply invested in a NPOV/NON-CENSORED project.

After all, we've spent years explaining NPOV / NOTCENSORED to Muslims
over Muhammad images, for example, and to Christians over Piss-Christ.
  We've defended racist imagery, we've defended neo-nazi hate-sites.
We've committed to not-censored, we've worked for NOTCENSORED, we've
offended totally innocent people so wikipedia could be NOTCENSORED,
and it was even theoretically  possible somebody might have died over
NOTCENSORED.

We did this because Wikipedia successfully convinced us that an
uncensored encyclopedia was a wonderful thing. And we've grown very
attached to it and the principles it espoused.

Maybe we do need a "potentially non-offensive" project in addition.
But if there is to be a "Brave New Encyclopedia" that promises freedom
from potential offense, shouldn't it be started as a NEW project with
a NEW userbase and a NEW editing community that's committed to these
NEW principles?

I'm skeptical that that a "potential offfense" can actually work, even
as its own project.  But, no harm in trying.  Meanwhile, our
Wikipedia, the "NPOV/NOTCENSORED" Wikipedia, does work!   And It
continues to work!

Wikipedia ain't broke-- don't fracture the community into bits by
trying to impose a "fix".
--

Some say:  "What's the difference between deleting offensive material
and deleting anything else?   REALLY, isn't ANY deletion, on some
level,  censorship?"

Well, no.  :)

Normal run-of-the-mill deletions (e.g. of nonsense,  etc) HELP our
mission by preserving our limited computing resources.  Censorship
HURTS our mission by intentionally making it harder for our readers to
find legal, legitimate information they themselves are actively trying
to access.

Normal decisions are justified using terms like "usefulness" and
"notable."  Censorship is justified using terms like
"potential-offensiveness", "pornographic",  "a threat to children", or
"immoral".

Normal decisions are democratic, culture-neutral, and are based on
verifiable facts.  Censorship is beyond debate, it's not
culture-neutral, it's imposed rather than accepted, and it's based on
unstated emotional biases and prejudices.

(And if those distinctions don't help determine which is which--
Censorship is the one that's really, really controversial around here.
:)   )

-- 

> Let me take some example. Ar-wp decides per community concensus not
> to use Mohammed  images. Seen in the light of en-wp rules, this is a censorship.
> If we maintain "no censorship" then ar-wp must remove that concensus. If not,
> we cannot maintain the "no censorship" slogan.

Admittedly, "free-information" people can be very black and white--
but even I'm  not  quite THIS black and white.  :)

I, for one, am not at all troubled that WMF might host a project that,
via TRUE consensus, decides to be, by my standards, censored.   (I
actually really wish we had a few censored english-language projects
lying around, so people would be less tempted to try to co-opt
EnWiki.)

I don't oppose people 'censoring' themselves if that's truly their
choice-- what I oppose is someone censoring US against our consent.
What I oppose is WMF trying take a NONCENSORED project swap out
NPOV/NOTCENSORED in favor of a fiat-imposed  "potential-offensiveness"
standard.

> Maybe a user is against every political censorship but is uncomfortable about
> having religious  insulting images. Is he "for" or "not for" censorship?

There's nothing wrong with wanting to avoid offending people.   I have
a LOT of sympathy and patience for people who think that wikipedia
should be censored, ESPECIALLY with the Muhammad issue where issues of
culture, religion, race, and violence are superimposed over issues of
NPOV and NOTCENSORED.

Being uncomfortable is a understandable and laudable response.
Sincerely.  Many many great minds throughout history have reached the
conclusion that some sub-populations need "protection" from
"potentially offensive" information, and I certainly can't prove them
wrong.

So if somebody undergoes a 'conversion experience' and realizes that
what we've  been doing here these many years, providing free access to
potentially-offensive information, is actually morally wrong-- well
that's okay with me.    Maybe they're right and I'm wrong.  A change
of heart isn't a sin.

But if that individual really feels strongly about stance, then maybe
they should reconsider serving in a capacity that requires them to
help provide "Free Access to All The World's Information".

Cause the world's information is really very offensive.  And providing
that information, offensive or not, is what we do here.

-- 

If  "No porn or other potential offensive material" this had been the
rule all along, that'd be one thing.  But that's not what our social
contract has been.

Our social contract included NPOV, its corollary NOTCENSORED, and a
strong commitment to the consensus process. Now, ten years in, these
rules suddenly aren't good enough anymore?   The clock has struck
Midnight, the coach has turned back into a pumpkin, and wikipedians
are no longer able to form  consensus on any tough issues?  Nonsense.

I thought we all agreed EnWiki/WMF wasn't going to be child-safe (or
conservative-safe, or liberal-safe, or muslim-safe,  work-safe or
nudity-safe or anythingelse-safe).  In fact, I thought we all agreed
on that years ago.  I thought that was what we stood for.

So, in May, it felt a little "slap-in-the-face"-ish when WMF, having
spent years collecting our edits and our dollars under the banners  of
"NPOV",  "NOTCENSORED" and  "CONSENSUS",  suddenly surrendered at the
first sign of trouble from Fox.

It seems naive now, but I think most of us had assumed that,  when
inevitable US-based pressure against our content arose,  the board
members would all side WITH the projects and AGAINST FoxNews.

I don't think anyone foresaw our then-leader publicly confirming Fox's
allegations and insisting that not only DO we have too much porn, but
that we have so much "hard code" pornography that required an
emergency fiat deletion campaign.    I definitely never EVER expect to
see such individuals deleting in-use images over literally scores of
objections.

To put this into perspective if free-information isn't essential to
you--  this was a little bit like being a volunteer at your local
library for years-- helping the staff, donating your valuable time and
limited funds, etc.   Then one day, you come in and see that someone
from Fox News has come to your public library while you were gone  and
managed to convinced half the librarians that they need to start
burning through the stacks.

Yeah, it's intense experience.

-- 

#"A  'Thought'  Experiment"

What if we did  actually allow "potential offensiveness" as a
criterion?   What does that kind of a debate look like?

Suppose, for instance that an admin showed up and demanded that a
notable work of art be deleted on the ground that it was "potentially
offensive".    How do you defend against that charge?

"Offensiveness" isn't really a NPOV-Verifiable fact, so it's up to
personal opinion.   No matter what you say, somebody else can always
say "Well, I don't care if this IS a famous work of art-- to me it's
just old porn.  And old porn is still porn.  I still find this content
to be offensive and I still want it deleted and I'm going to delete it
myself and i'll block you if you try to stop me!"

What does kind of a deletion debate that look like??  Is it civil?
Does it encourage mutual respect?  Does it promote the free exchange
of information?

No no.. This approach was tried and it failed miserably:
http://tinyurl.com/2fuo3eq

And it was destined to fail, because no one can fairly play the role
of moral censor for a population as diverse as Wikipedia.  Not me, not
you, not Jimmy, nobody.  No one can fairly decide what is "too
offensive for 12 million people spread across the globe".  Can't be
done.

All such a censor can do is decide what's "too offensive to me".  So
if you're asked to be a censor, you do what you know-- you delete
stuff that offends you but other people think is important, and you
keep stuff you think is important but that other people find
offensive.

And once you start down that road, it's little more than modern-day
bigotry that ultimately makes the judgments.

Deleting "offensive art" may not be how you guys meant for things to
go, but it is where things  ended up, and quickly too. You slid right
down the slippery slope-- just than like we free-speechers always said
you would only, only far faster than anyone could have predicted.
Before anyone could believe it,  the art was being taken down off the
walls and heaped on the fire.

Jimbo demonstrated he was utterly unable to responsibly use
"potential-offensiveness" as a deletion criterion.   For us now to ask
ALL of our editors to use a similar criteria would only bring far, far
worse results.

The "potentially offensive" approach just plain doesn't work.   (And
even if it DID work-- it's not the approach we signed up for. )

--
> Searching for a community consensus cannot work in such black
> and white manner.

That's quite a bold statement.  (or at least, I've seen some bold
statements on this subject)

I don't think our current projects are fundamentally flawed.
I see no sign that consensus can't work here.  On the contrary, May
seemed to demonstrate that not only CAN consensus form in these
situations, but sometimes the consensus can be quite deafening.

I think the real issue is that that consensus HAS been reached on the
NOTCENSORED / NPOV/Sexual Content policies issues--  the community
consensus just match the pre-designated conclusion, and so it was thus
ruled to be the outcome of a "broken and flawed" process, something
the community just  can't handle on its own, not without grown-up
help.


--------
# Spot the Difference

> What difference is  this agree-with-me-or-I-will-boycott-you position
> to the ace-wp template of boycotting Wikipedia because it contains Mohammed image?

Great question.  Turns out there's a really really simple difference.

Wikipedia never promised anyone that  "Wikipedia Doesn't Show Muhammad
Pictures"!
But Wikipedia promised everyone "Wikipedia Is Not Censored" and
"Wikipedia is written from a NPOV"

Allowing Muhammad images doesn't involve any breach of promise.
But allowing censorship and non-neutral POV does involve a breach of trust.

So a better analogy is this:

Suppose a very conservative mosque, after years of forbidding images
of Muhammad, suddenly reversed itself, and started distributing the
offensive cartoons of Muhammad.   Its members would, rightly, feel
betrayed.

Wikipedia isn't a mosque, but we have unique culture of our own.
Seeing  19th century art deleted as "old porn"-- well that's as
disrespectful of OUR traditions, just as offensive images of Muhammad
might would be disrespectful in the context of a  mosque.

I think NOTCENSORED is fundamental and inseparable from Wikipedia's
mission.  But-- even if we can't convince you that NOTCENSORED is
fundamentally important to Wikipedia, at least recognize that it's
very important to many many many Wikipedians.


> Refusing every discussion, no compromise at all, I find this a very strange
> stance for a Wikimedian.

Indeed:
http://tinyurl.com/2w2ayy2

Things work better via traditional consensus building.  Even I,
free-speecher that I am, would very sincerely abide, in relative
silence, by a TRUE consensus to repeal NOTCENSORED.

In May, it seems like some people got the idea that since the
discussion wasn't producing the results they wanted, they'd just stop
all discussion and start enforcing instead.

And If ever you want to kill civil discussion, just say "We can
discuss later after I'm done implementing it"

Once that happened, the time for discussion was basically over and the
time for revising roles had begun.   When someone is done listening
but not yet done acting, the only remaining options are blocks and
boycotts.   I'm not happy about that, but there was no alternative.

--

If we seem fundamentalist, perhaps we are a little.   But this sort of
 free-information advocacy is a part of Wikipedia's very DNA--  from
our open-source platform to our free-licensed content, from our open
community anyone can join  to the open protocols that our internet
runs on.   It may be an annoying and pseudo-fundamentalist stance, but
it is part of how we got here.   Free-information advocacy built
Wikipedia.

Many of us thought that, via projects like Wikimedia, we were helping
to eliminate censorship from the rest of the world.  Many of us write
software, to make free laptops, for kids we'll never ever meet, just
so that people all around the world can have a chance to see what free
speech is really like.  Some of us are here because help STOP
censorship around the world, not to help perpetuate it,  and certainly
not to subjected to it ourselves.

-- 

In our early days, when we had nothing to lose, no big media
interviews, and no way to be blackmailed, NOTCENSORED seemed to work
just fine for us.  Now that we are more successful and independent
than ever, now, in our finest houst, NOW suddenly this long-cherished
principle has to go?

Now, some faction of our community, Jimmy first among them, has
decided that after years of success, we should trade in our "Not
Censored" Wikipedia for a swiss-cheesed encyclopedia in the hopes of
making a "potentially non-offensive" project??

I have no idea what the purpose or cause of this is-- a personal
religious conversion?  an acquired distaste for negative press?  The
promise of more donations from a conservative big-money donor or a
prominent university?  The influence of Russian spies?  Contact from
an extraterrestrial intelligence in the form of a monolith?  A
windfall for Wikia if our projects substantially narrow their scope?
 All of these?  Something else entirely?  Or maybe no reason at all.

I have no idea what shiny new bauble we hope to obtain, if only we'd
renounce a few of our  core principles.  But I really hope we don't
take the deal.

Is there something different about the world of 2010 that makes 2009's
"Wikipedia is Not Censored" policy suddenly unfeasible?

Have we been spending nine years destroying the minds of the youth
worldwide to such an extent that an immediate 180-degree change of
course is necessary?

-- 

> What also made me very sad in this thread is to see that some community
> members obviously had taken a very foundamentalistic position. Either
> you agree with me, otherwise I will quit and fork.

Well, I'm probably the biggest offender of anyone here on this one,
because I think it's ESSENTIAL that we fork if WMF adopted a scope
that excluded material on the grounds of  "potential-offense".

But our motivation isn't malicious.  It's not:  "You're guys are evil
and we should all quit rather than associate with you."   Not in the
slightest.

Instead, our motivation stems from wanting to protect Wikipedia and
its current policies:  "We love Wikipedia the way it is! So if
wikipedia does get deleted ,if it's replaced with an identically-named
but "potentially-non-offensive" project , our first priority should be
restore the uncensored Wikipedia and continue working on it."

However, I'm infinitely glad that the foundation appears to be
stepping away from the brink.  The best home for a free, uncensored
wiki remains the Wikimedia Foundation.

But ultimately, the greatest protection Wikipedia has is that there
are other homes out there for a free, uncensored collection of the
world's information, where everyone gets offended equally and "I find
this offensive" carries no weight.  After all, Wikipedia has already
shown us just how wonderful it is to have such a project!

No matter what WMF does, there will always a place for
Wikipedia-as-it-currently-is. A lot of us want such a project to
continue, a lot of us want to improve THAT project, and a lot of us
want to protect that project.  If fact, one of the main reasons so
many of us gave money last year to WMF was because, ironically enough,
 we were told those funds would help PROTECT that very same Wikipedia
from outside pressures.  But ultimately, not even millions in
donations was really able to truly "protect" a free, uncensored
Wikipedia, it seems.

(Indeed,  in the back of my mind, I sometimes worry that our new-found
fund-raising success might somehow be part of the problem.   Perhaps
we've seen these unilateral actions precisely because funding is now
so secure that whole swaths of our content and our community can now
be considered "expendable".  Heck, perhaps some fanatic with very deep
pockets is offering to hire the entire board, en masse, with
high-paying salaries, if only they'll delete the right paintings.
Those are just pulled from thin-air, of course,  but clearly,
something is going on now that wasn't going on from 2001-2009-- and
the amazingly successful fund raising is one of the few big
differences I can think of.)

Fortunately, where $10 million fails, Creative Commons succeeds.  IT
DOES protect Wikipedia, because foundations and servers can come and
go, but Wikipedia will endure.

And there is no good reason for it not to endure right here.  It's
done really here, these past 9 years, after all.  Let's go for 20, and
in the mean time, let's give the green light to people who might like
to try their hand at making a non-offensive english-language
encyclopedia here at Wikimedia.


Alec "been writing this for WAY too long" Conroy

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l