Fred Bauder said:
In other words, children should be denied access to the internet unless their parents choose to expose them to degeneracy?
Well, unsupervised access, yes. But I take your point that:
But that is not our
question. Obviously a user of Wikipedia may be occasionally exposed to material which is inserted as vandalism. The question is whether, after due consideration, objectionable material is to be included as an accepted part of our presentation of knowledge.
Yes. I think we should tackle this question face-on. I won't lose any sleep, or leave the project, or have a hissy fit, if Wikipedia excludes objectionable material, because Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advancing my point of view. But at present I think I'm seeing a bifurcation--one which I've tried to illustrate in recent emails. Wikipedia at present does not exclude encyclopedic descriptions of, even legally permissible illustrations of, objectionable material, including Autofellatio and Lolicon, and at present we inline even extremely objectionable images such as a picture of an abused child holding a teddy bear with a dildo. A vote to delete a description of a serious and explicitly non-consensual sexual assault presented as a "sex move" will fall far from gaining a consensus. We're entering the mainstream, newspapers are starting to cite Wikipedia articles as background in their stories. The question of what content is acceptable on Wikipedia is very important. Whatever we choose will affect the way in which our project is perceived by the public. In its present form Wikipedia will very soon gain some powerful enemies--this is unavoidable even if we remove or severely restrict the display of all objectionable images, because on present form it appears that there is no consensus to delete articles that will make Wikipedia unacceptable for use by children. It's not my concern so much which decisions are made, so much as that the decision made should be made with open eyes. Not by the editors, but by Jimbo and the Board, who own and ultimately take responsibility for this project. If Jimbo does not have an appetite for a fight with the religious right of his country, now is the time to consider toning down Wikipedia content. Only the board could enforce such a decision.