Hi all,
I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and read Larry's blog post and the subsequent discussion on this list with great interest.
My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of pornography goes some way to an imagining of what is hanging on the clubhouse walls. Although not apparent in the course of normal browsing and editing (I've yet to stumble on anything particularly offensive), it may contribute to the culture which has resulted in a such a participation skew between genders.
I do think it is worth further exploring the idea of the "techno-libertarians" who dominate policy-making as being young males without children. I know that my views on any number of things has changed since I have had children of my own - as my ability to donate time to discussing such issues!
Kind regards, Kim
Kim Osman │ Research Student ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation Queensland University of Technology Z1 - 515 Musk Avenue│KelvinGrove Qld 4059 T: +61 7 3138 3687 │ F: +61 7 3138 3723 │ E: kim.osman@qut.edu.au│ W: http://cci.edu.au
CRICOS No: 00213J ________________________________________
On Thursday, 31 May 2012 at 04:38, Kim Osman wrote:
I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and read Larry's blog post and the subsequent discussion on this list with great interest.
My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of pornography goes some way to an imagining of what is hanging on the clubhouse walls. Although not apparent in the course of normal browsing and editing (I've yet to stumble on anything particularly offensive), it may contribute to the culture which has resulted in a such a participation skew between genders.
I think everyone recognises the problems. I'm pretty much against censorship, but I still find it icky looking at certain images on Wikipedia. When I was involved in the Wikimedia UK outreach event at Cancer Research UK, I saw some fairly grisly images. I've occasionally had to deal with the BADIMAGES list on-wiki qua my role as admin.
The problem is that Larry and others who are banging on about the sexual images is that they are conflating two things: the discussed opt-in image filter and an adult content filter. The former is what the Wikimedia community discussed (and seems to have rejected). The latter is what Larry seems to want. The latter has never been on the table. The point of the opt-in image filter is to let people choose what images they don't want to see, whereas an adult content filter would have to prevent children from accessing material their parents don't want them to see. The latter is a much, much harder job, and comes with great risk of over-filtering: if someone opts-out of seeing sexual images and we go a bit too far and hide the Venus de Milo, an opt-in image filter lets the user click the box and see it again. But a filter intended for preventing children from seeing naughty pics by definition cannot allow this. Therefore we'd have to be especially careful with false positives.
I wrote something about this a while back:
http://blog.tommorris.org/post/11286767288/opt-in-image-filter-enabling-cens...
I do think it is worth further exploring the idea of the "techno-libertarians" who dominate policy-making as being young males without children. I know that my views on any number of things has changed since I have had children of my own - as my ability to donate time to discussing such issues!
I find it sad that Larry uses a term like "technolibertarian". The fact that a word like that can encompass anyone who opposes censorship technologies and the Peter Thiel/singularity crowd who think that technology is going to help bring about some kind of government-free paradise (basically Somalia with iPhones) shows the term to be basically meaningless.
The problem with all enforced filtering systems is that they aren't going to stop kids getting to porn (15-year-old boys have both a lot of time, technical expertise and will find creative ways to get their hands on porn), but they often will over-censor. Back in the 90s, GLAAD put out a report called "Access Denied" that described how filtering technology was restricting access to LGBT information sites. My university used to prevent students (adults!) from accessing the Wikipedia article on "Same-sex marriage" because, well, the URL contains the word "sex". Breast cancer awareness/information sites get hammered for the word "breast".
What message does this send to young people? We care so much about "protecting" you from something you can probably get anyway, that we'll suggest to you that breast cancer or being LGBT is some kind of sexual or pornographic topic.
You know, while I'd rather my son learns about human sexuality in a way that I'm comfortable with and can control, the reality is that he's not going to come to his mum for that information! I'd really much rather he reads that information on Wikipedia, (even if that information is not perfect), than gets his education on the topic from *actual* internet pornography. In this sense putting in a "family friendly" content filter like Larry Sanger advocates would probably be a massive own goal.
If there are any other mothers on the list, I'd be interested in hearing their thoughts too...
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
The problem with all enforced filtering systems is that they aren't going to stop kids getting to porn (15-year-old boys have both a lot of time, technical expertise and will find creative ways to get their hands on porn), but they often will over-censor. Back in the 90s, GLAAD put out a report called "Access Denied" that described how filtering technology was restricting access to LGBT information sites. My university used to prevent students (adults!) from accessing the Wikipedia article on "Same-sex marriage" because, well, the URL contains the word "sex". Breast cancer awareness/information sites get hammered for the word "breast".
We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images as you might find in a school book. We are talking about images or videos of women drinking their urine, masturbating with a toothbrush, or having sex with a dog.
Andreas
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Michelle Gallaway mgallaway@gmail.comwrote:
You know, while I'd rather my son learns about human sexuality in a way that I'm comfortable with and can control, the reality is that he's not going to come to his mum for that information! I'd really much rather he reads that information on Wikipedia, (even if that information is not perfect), than gets his education on the topic from *actual* internet pornography. In this sense putting in a "family friendly" content filter like Larry Sanger advocates would probably be a massive own goal.
If there are any other mothers on the list, I'd be interested in hearing their thoughts too...
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
The problem with all enforced filtering systems is that they aren't going to stop kids getting to porn (15-year-old boys have both a lot of time, technical expertise and will find creative ways to get their hands on porn), but they often will over-censor. Back in the 90s, GLAAD put out a report called "Access Denied" that described how filtering technology was restricting access to LGBT information sites. My university used to prevent students (adults!) from accessing the Wikipedia article on "Same-sex marriage" because, well, the URL contains the word "sex". Breast cancer awareness/information sites get hammered for the word "breast".
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think the point is taken.
I really have no desire to think about these things, especially every time I read this mailing list these days.
-Sarah
On 6/2/12 7:57 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images as you might find in a school book. We are talking about images or videos of women drinking their urine, masturbating with a toothbrush, or having sex with a dog.
Andreas
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Michelle Gallaway <mgallaway@gmail.com mailto:mgallaway@gmail.com> wrote:
You know, while I'd rather my son learns about human sexuality in a way that I'm comfortable with and can control, the reality is that he's not going to come to his mum for that information! I'd really much rather he reads that information on Wikipedia, (even if that information is not perfect), than gets his education on the topic from *actual* internet pornography. In this sense putting in a "family friendly" content filter like Larry Sanger advocates would probably be a massive own goal. If there are any other mothers on the list, I'd be interested in hearing their thoughts too... On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org <mailto:tom@tommorris.org>> wrote: The problem with all enforced filtering systems is that they aren't going to stop kids getting to porn (15-year-old boys have both a lot of time, technical expertise and will find creative ways to get their hands on porn), but they often will over-censor. Back in the 90s, GLAAD put out a report called "Access Denied" that described how filtering technology was restricting access to LGBT information sites. My university used to prevent students (adults!) from accessing the Wikipedia article on "Same-sex marriage" because, well, the URL contains the word "sex". Breast cancer awareness/information sites get hammered for the word "breast". _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 6/2/2012 12:15 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I think the point is taken.
I really have no desire to think about these things, especially every time I read this mailing list these days.
-Sarah
Really. My idea is, let the foundation use it's best judgement. I'm sure it will err on the "liberal" side...
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images as you might find in a school book. We are talking about images or videos...
[snip to spare Sarah's eyes, and mine]
Andreas, I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, not as an editor, but as a user, and the only times I've come across those things you mention were while reading your posts, emails and notes, and clicking on links *you* provided (or others having the same discourse), never "by chance". I am not saying the problem does not exist, I am the first to think that many Commons images need to be cleaned up (and not only for model release and obvious porn reasons, but for many others too), but I would be grateful if you could avoid emphasizing your point in such a crude way in every single email you write and derail otherwise important and interesting threads. Thanks.
More importantly, I would like to answer Michelle. I am a mother of two. Granted, they are still young, and not yet in the age where they actually surf the internet. Still, what they might come across while browsing is something I have thought about.
I think it is hard for a certain generation (mine at least, maybe yours, I don't know), to understand what it's like to be "digital natives", and take the internet for granted. More important, it is a bit difficult for me to take the plethora of information one finds on the internet for granted. But although I've started "late" (I am 40, for the record, my kids are 4 and 2), I chatted right off the bat, and met some weird people on the internet, for example. There was at the time way less content, and certainly of way worse quality than what one can find today.If I look back, though, I used the internet the way my parents had taught me to "act in a public place". So what my parents brought me was put to good use in that new "public space", regardless of the fact that that public space had different rules (anonymity, and yes, a plethora of sexual content, for example).
My take is that today is no different. Our kids will grow in a world where the public space is what it is, and they will be confronted to these things. And I am convinced that it is MY responsibility to teach them about what they might find (or not find for that matter) in that public space, not to rely on anyone else's judgement to decide for them what they can see and not see.
I will protect them where I can, but more importantly, I will try and help them develop judgement tools and values that I believe are right. They might go against them, they might seek pornography on the internet, but that will be their own choice, and I'll have to live with it. I really don't think that any filter on Wikipedia or even any other websites will ever prevent them from coming across some of those things. Hopefully, if it shocks them, disgusts them or whatever other negative reaction, I will have taught them to come to me (or anyone else in a position to "explain") and ask questions and talk about things.
My take is that the internet is not here to teach our kids. We are there for that. That is my role as a mother, and the responsibility I took on when deciding to have kids. And I intend to give my best to fill that role and make sure that I give as many tools as I can to my children to live in the world we live in. I don't think that hoping that someone else is going to "protect them" from all bad things is the answer.
Best,
Delphine
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images as you might find in a school book. We are talking about images or videos...
[snip to spare Sarah's eyes, and mine]
Andreas, I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, not as an editor, but as a user, and the only times I've come across those things you mention were while reading your posts, emails and notes, and clicking on links *you* provided (or others having the same discourse), never "by chance". I am not saying the problem does not exist, I am the first to think that many Commons images need to be cleaned up (and not only for model release and obvious porn reasons, but for many others too), but I would be grateful if you could avoid emphasizing your point in such a crude way in every single email you write and derail otherwise important and interesting threads. Thanks.
Delphine and all,
I appreciate that these things are unpalatable – if they weren't, there'd be no problem with Wikimedia hosting them unfiltered, and this discussion would be moot. We are labouring under what Larry has called the "yuck factor" here – some things are just so unpalatable that people prefer not to know, and not to get involved.
Saying and doing nothing about this topic would be an option if these files were as obscure as your personal experience of Wikimedia would suggest. If they got 10 or 12 views a day, say, there would hardly be much reason to make a fuss.
But that is not the case.
The most extreme of the three examples I described in my previous mail has been viewed more than 100,000 times this year. It seems to have been well advertised, because it had high viewing figures from day one, months before I ever learnt about it or posted a link about it. Here are its viewing stats for January, when it was uploaded:
http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/201201/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
This is from a film that is illegal to view or own in dozens of countries around the world, including some Western ones, or is at least restricted to showings in private sex clubs. But at the present rate, it will have had about a quarter of a million views on Wikimedia Commons by the end of this year.
Now, given the volume of this demand – this file has been in the Commons top-100 – we cannot simply operate a policy of "out of sight, out of mind", because, while these matters may be out of our minds, they are verifiably on the minds of tens of thousands of others. A good proportion of them, certainly, will be children and teenagers surfing in their bedrooms, whose parents have told them that Wikimedia is a reputable educational site that is good for them to view.
More such material will accumulate on Wikimedia servers as time passes. We do need to think about our responsibilities here. Are we really prepared to host everything, even the most bizarre material, unfiltered?
Wikimedia is importing thousands of private images from Flickr, where they are hosted responsibly, behind an age-18 wall, and shared among a limited and mutually consensual audience, and is putting them on public view in Commons and Wikipedia for a global audience. Helpful navigation templates at the bottom of Wikipedia articles enable enquiring minds to discover illustrated articles on sexual kinks they could not even have dreamt existed. Is that wholly and unquestionably a good thing?
There was a related article on this in the Telegraph yesterday, "Don't tell my kids about your sex life":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9305670/Dont-tell-my-kids-about-your-sex-l...
The writer is making some valid points in that article.
Ironically, however, she names Wikipedia as one of the sites where she believes this is NOT happening. That assumption is flatly contradicted by viewing statistics like those above.
Wikipedia is doing exactly that: it is a place where adults tell a global audience that includes children about kinky sex. And its status as an educational site, and the only major site eschewing any kind of filtering, puts it at the forefront of this effort.
Now it is absolutely true that children and adults can find a far greater amount of explicit content elsewhere (provided they have learnt in Wikipedia what to Google for ...). Kids could find the original images we host in Flickr too, if their curiosity was so great that they were prepared to lie about their age. But the fact is, they don't.
Material like this may certainly have educational value, in the right context. But we have a responsibility to follow mainstream educational standards. A sexology course in university may involve a video or live presentations of a couple demonstrating BDSM techniques to students. This sort of thing happens and is legitimate. Sex education in schools, however, does not involve such graphic presentations. And I think that is equally legitimate. One of the functions of a filter is to make that difference clear.
The second function of the filter is of course to enable adults who are really not interested in these topics to adjust their settings in such a way that Wikimedia will not show them kink or gore in response to innocuous searches – see
http://tch995319.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikim...
and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems
for an explanation of how or why this happens – much like some of the contributors here feel this discussion itself is an unwanted intrusion.
On that point, I am sorry to have raised these matters in a manner that has seemed crude to some of you. I will take this to heart, and think of ways to express myself in less offensive ways. But we have to be clear and differentiate between the criticism of religious fundamentalists, who might object to a bikini shot and plain anatomical images, and the question whether it is right for Wikimedia to host a growing store of explicit images of the most bizarre kinds of kink unfiltered.
Nobody (at least not me, nor Larry, as far as I can see) advocates a filter that would prevent children from viewing sex-educational material on Wikipedia, and drive them to porn sites instead to learn about sex. As far as I am concerned, everything that is well and good in schools could remain entirely unfiltered here.
But material that is borderline illegal, or that is subject to strict age restrictions in the real world, or that is imported from sites where it is hosted in an age-restricted section, should be behind a filter (which, after all, can still be bypassed by anyone – of any age – who is curious enough).
Andreas
Hi everyone,
I think we're on the "Beating a dead horse" again situation with this subject.[1] We will be going in circles about it - most of us seem to not care as much as others, and no one seems to be taking any direct action at this point. *I'm evening proposing this: someone can create a mailing list or an on-wiki space (even better!) to continue the discussion and those folks interested in examining pornography, sex related, whatnot images on Wikimedia projects can discuss it until their hearts content and think about ways to take action, etc.*
After request from a few participants off list and my own personal interest, I'm declaring that we kill this thread and move on.
Participants in this thread may now under go moderator regarding this specific thread.
And what's more interesting, is that the majority of women who are participating in this conversation seem to be the one's with the least concern about it, go figure.
Thanks everyone,
Sarah
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse
On 6/3/12 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com mailto:notafishz@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com <mailto:jayen466@gmail.com>> wrote: > We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images as you > might find in a school book. We are talking about images or videos... [snip to spare Sarah's eyes, and mine] Andreas, I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, not as an editor, but as a user, and the only times I've come across those things you mention were while reading your posts, emails and notes, and clicking on links *you* provided (or others having the same discourse), never "by chance". I am not saying the problem does not exist, I am the first to think that many Commons images need to be cleaned up (and not only for model release and obvious porn reasons, but for many others too), but I would be grateful if you could avoid emphasizing your point in such a crude way in every single email you write and derail otherwise important and interesting threads. Thanks.Delphine and all,
I appreciate that these things are unpalatable -- if they weren't, there'd be no problem with Wikimedia hosting them unfiltered, and this discussion would be moot. We are labouring under what Larry has called the "yuck factor" here -- some things are just so unpalatable that people prefer not to know, and not to get involved.
Saying and doing nothing about this topic would be an option if these files were as obscure as your personal experience of Wikimedia would suggest. If they got 10 or 12 views a day, say, there would hardly be much reason to make a fuss.
But that is not the case.
The most extreme of the three examples I described in my previous mail has been viewed more than 100,000 times this year. It seems to have been well advertised, because it had high viewing figures from day one, months before I ever learnt about it or posted a link about it. Here are its viewing stats for January, when it was uploaded:
http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/201201/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
This is from a film that is illegal to view or own in dozens of countries around the world, including some Western ones, or is at least restricted to showings in private sex clubs. But at the present rate, it will have had about a quarter of a million views on Wikimedia Commons by the end of this year.
Now, given the volume of this demand -- this file has been in the Commons top-100 -- we cannot simply operate a policy of "out of sight, out of mind", because, while these matters may be out of our minds, they are verifiably on the minds of tens of thousands of others. A good proportion of them, certainly, will be children and teenagers surfing in their bedrooms, whose parents have told them that Wikimedia is a reputable educational site that is good for them to view.
More such material will accumulate on Wikimedia servers as time passes. We do need to think about our responsibilities here. Are we really prepared to host everything, even the most bizarre material, unfiltered?
Wikimedia is importing thousands of private images from Flickr, where they are hosted responsibly, behind an age-18 wall, and shared among a limited and mutually consensual audience, and is putting them on public view in Commons and Wikipedia for a global audience. Helpful navigation templates at the bottom of Wikipedia articles enable enquiring minds to discover illustrated articles on sexual kinks they could not even have dreamt existed. Is that wholly and unquestionably a good thing?
There was a related article on this in the Telegraph yesterday, "Don't tell my kids about your sex life":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9305670/Dont-tell-my-kids-about-your-sex-l...
The writer is making some valid points in that article.
Ironically, however, she names Wikipedia as one of the sites where she believes this is NOT happening. That assumption is flatly contradicted by viewing statistics like those above.
Wikipedia is doing exactly that: it is a place where adults tell a global audience that includes children about kinky sex. And its status as an educational site, and the only major site eschewing any kind of filtering, puts it at the forefront of this effort.
Now it is absolutely true that children and adults can find a far greater amount of explicit content elsewhere (provided they have learnt in Wikipedia what to Google for ...). Kids could find the original images we host in Flickr too, if their curiosity was so great that they were prepared to lie about their age. But the fact is, they don't.
Material like this may certainly have educational value, in the right context. But we have a responsibility to follow mainstream educational standards. A sexology course in university may involve a video or live presentations of a couple demonstrating BDSM techniques to students. This sort of thing happens and is legitimate. Sex education in schools, however, does not involve such graphic presentations. And I think that is equally legitimate. One of the functions of a filter is to make that difference clear.
The second function of the filter is of course to enable adults who are really not interested in these topics to adjust their settings in such a way that Wikimedia will not show them kink or gore in response to innocuous searches -- see
http://tch995319.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikim...
and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems
for an explanation of how or why this happens -- much like some of the contributors here feel this discussion itself is an unwanted intrusion.
On that point, I am sorry to have raised these matters in a manner that has seemed crude to some of you. I will take this to heart, and think of ways to express myself in less offensive ways. But we have to be clear and differentiate between the criticism of religious fundamentalists, who might object to a bikini shot and plain anatomical images, and the question whether it is right for Wikimedia to host a growing store of explicit images of the most bizarre kinds of kink unfiltered.
Nobody (at least not me, nor Larry, as far as I can see) advocates a filter that would prevent children from viewing sex-educational material on Wikipedia, and drive them to porn sites instead to learn about sex. As far as I am concerned, everything that is well and good in schools could remain entirely unfiltered here.
But material that is borderline illegal, or that is subject to strict age restrictions in the real world, or that is imported from sites where it is hosted in an age-restricted section, should be behind a filter (which, after all, can still be bypassed by anyone -- of any age -- who is curious enough).
Andreas
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Sounds good... go for it... On 6/3/2012 12:50 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think we're on the "Beating a dead horse" again situation with this subject.[1] We will be going in circles about it - most of us seem to not care as much as others, and no one seems to be taking any direct action at this point. *I'm evening proposing this: someone can create a mailing list or an on-wiki space (even better!) to continue the discussion and those folks interested in examining pornography, sex related, whatnot images on Wikimedia projects can discuss it until their hearts content and think about ways to take action, etc.*
After request from a few participants off list and my own personal interest, I'm declaring that we kill this thread and move on.
Participants in this thread may now under go moderator regarding this specific thread.
And what's more interesting, is that the majority of women who are participating in this conversation seem to be the one's with the least concern about it, go figure.
Thanks everyone,
Sarah
Hear hear!
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
Sounds good... go for it... On 6/3/2012 12:50 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think we're on the "Beating a dead horse" again situation with this subject.[1] We will be going in circles about it - most of us seem to not care as much as others, and no one seems to be taking any direct action at this point. *I'm evening proposing this: someone can create a mailing list or an on-wiki space (even better!) to continue the discussion and those folks interested in examining pornography, sex related, whatnot images on Wikimedia projects can discuss it until their hearts content and think about ways to take action, etc.*
After request from a few participants off list and my own personal interest, I'm declaring that we kill this thread and move on.
Participants in this thread may now under go moderator regarding this specific thread.
And what's more interesting, is that the majority of women who are participating in this conversation seem to be the one's with the least concern about it, go figure.
Thanks everyone,
Sarah
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 06/03/2012 12:50 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I think we're on the "Beating a dead horse" again situation with this subject.[1] We will be going in circles about it - most of us seem to not care as much as others, and no one seems to be taking any direct action at this point. *I'm evening proposing this: someone can create a mailing list or an on-wiki space (even better!) to continue the discussion and those folks interested in examining pornography, sex related, whatnot images on Wikimedia projects can discuss it until their hearts content and think about ways to take action, etc.*
I suggested the same thing to Andreas, but I doubt he'll let it go easily on this list...
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images as you might find in a school book. We are talking about images or videos of women (...)
Andreas
Maybe I'm just asking for it, but I just did some searches for these things, and only found two out of the three. Both of them took a fair bit of searching to find, as well. I suppose I might be able to stumble across them by chance but I think it would be unlikely. The one I didn't find would I think be illegal under Florida law, and "illegal" is a different kettle of fish to "inappropriate".
My take is that the internet is not here to teach our kids. We are
there for that. That is my role as a mother, and the responsibility I
took on when deciding to have kids. And I intend to give my best to
fill that role and make sure that I give as many tools as I can to my
children to live in the world we live in. I don't think that hoping
that someone else is going to "protect them" from all bad things is
the answer.
Thank you for your perspective :-). I agree that I'd rather do the teaching myself, but I think the reality is in this day and age is that the Internet will probably be first, especially on some of the more 'unusual' expressions of human sexuality. This is something I think that us older folk are going to be unprepared for, at my son's age I'd never actually touched a computer, let alone been able to surf an Internet! Part of the strategy of course is to set the tone in the household to something appropriate, my son is growing up in a sex-positive environment where sex is not seen as something taboo or undesirable, so with any luck when he eventually does stumble across some of those things that Andreas mentioned, more likely on the wider internet than on Wikipedia, he can process them appropriately.
I guess what I'm getting at, is that I don't view some difficult to find stuff in an obscure corner of Commons as anywhere near as big a worry as some easily accessible Internet pornography which portrays some people purely as sexual objects for the gratification of other people. Even a 100% perfect filter on Wikimedia projects isn't going to fix that.
On 6/3/2012 3:29 AM, Michelle Gallaway wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com mailto:jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images as you might find in a school book. We are talking about images or videos of women (...) AndreasMaybe I'm just asking for it, but I just did some searches for these things, and only found two out of the three. Both of them took a fair bit of searching to find, as well. I suppose I might be able to stumble across them by chance but I think it would be unlikely. The one I didn't find would I think be illegal under Florida law, and "illegal" is a different kettle of fish to "inappropriate".
Let's face it, kids ARE looking for such verboten stuff. And some of them are better searcher than we are.
The real problem is the 13 year olds sharing it with the 8 year olds who don't need to know that stuff.
In the end it's usually about the parents teaching their kids to be responsible.
And for Wikifoundation somehow to figure out how to separate the educational from the gratuitous/abusive/encouragement-2-violence type stuff.
I don't mind weighing in when these things come up here. (Usually to say "Why don't they have some graphics of Gay Guys doing that???")
But wouldn't want opining to be even a part-time job...
CM