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.