Hello all --
I sent this out a week ago, but have been having e-mail problems, so don't know if it was received; nevertheless, I am still of the same mind. Moreover, having paid attention to the discussion on the subject of filters, etc., I cannot say that anything has happened except to convince me that anyone really gives a shit about the initial question.
The initial question/suggestion was to place a visible advisory that the wikipedia contains information that some people might find objectionable. From there, there were many straw men raised about the POV-ness of "objectionable". Me, I agree that lots of stuff might be objectionable (-- and so what?), but that there are certain (mostly) sexually explicit articles that your average surfer might not expect to find, and that even a fairly conscientious parent (or child, in Jimmy's case) might miss when glancing over the site for age-appropriateness (or even some kind of family-imposed moral or religious code -- unless KQ, Erik, et al. mean to suggest that parents should not be allowed any say in when they want their children intentionally exposed to certain information -- religious, political, sexual, whatever, by religious, atheist, or just plain struggling-through-something-far-too-easy-to-screw-up-and-don't-need-inp ut-from-strangers parents, that is).
The entire conversation has been not-very-subtly changed to be one over filters and wikipedia-imposed censorship. It's one that I consider to be total bullshit, by the way -- well-calculated deviation that blurs any dealing with any type of deeper social responsibility. Some of you have managed to prove that Thatcherism is not dead (you know, the nice lady who said "there is no such thing as 'society'"?). Nor is the ridiculous world of Ayn Rand, where one can pretend that one's actions have no wider consequences than those other people allow them to have. How utterly depressing that so many people who consider it important to write very good articles that raise awareness of the global interconnections of scientific, political, and religious issues (among others) refuse to accept that their own actions (or refusal to act) might also have widespread effects. How very sad that the very people who consistently argue for NPOV try to use it as some kind of shield of non-censorship, thus forcing their own POV on others. Please don't say you aren't -- there have been all too many "religion and prudery damage kids, and they'd learn this stuff anyway, so it might as well be right" arguments to deny it. What is more NPOV than to say clearly on the main page that the wikipedia respects the fact that people operate under many different value systems, and that there may be information on the site that could be objectionable?
Oh -- and BTW, if we stuck to "wikipedia is not a dictionary", most of the articles that make a lot of wikipedians squeamish would be deleted anyway -- my guess is that no one wants to be seen as less than open-minded. Felching is certainly a dictionary-type definition.
And also -- DW is dangerous in any form. I'm almost positive he was also Triton, and Jacques Delson. The time he takes from other people's efforts is hardly worth any contributions. HJ also made some very good contributions.
Anyway, as I say below, I'll check the list until my requests below are answered. Thanks and peace.
JHK
-----Original Message----- From: Julie Kemp [mailto:juleskemp@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 12:50 PM To: 'Jimmy Wales' Subject: Advisories and saying goodbye
Hi Jimmy --
You know, I've been watching the discussion on the disclaimer on the list and on the associated talk page, and I have to say, it really has made up my mind on a lot of things. Oddly enough, it also ties back into the kind of problems I've had with Helga, Triton, et al.
I really believe that expertise is important. I really believe that NPOV doesn't mean giving equal weight to all points of view, if some of those points of view are not well grounded in fact or accepted theory. I really believe that NPOV is vital to the Wikipedia. I really believe that censorship is antithetical to the project. BUT -- that doesn't mean I don't think that we should use those principles to abdicate our responsibilities to a larger society. It's all good is a nice phrase, but it isn't exactly true. Some things aren't good. And sometimes giving things that aren't good more 'airtime' than they deserve helps to inure people and even, I think, encourages a tacit acceptance that this is all part of society. From there, I think it's entirely possible that people drawn to antisocial behavior will find reinforcement for their behavior. The acceptance may not be true, but perceptions are often more important for society than reality.
Me? I'm just a leftwing democrat ancient and medieval historian. Maybe it has something to do with having read all that stuff on the individual's place in and responsibility to society -- that "man is a being of the polis" stuff. Maybe it's growing up in the "ask not what your country can do for you ...", Great Society world. Maybe it's because I deal with young people daily, and have read and seen enough to know in my gut that children are *supposed* to be protected by adults (and not in the crazy Adam/Lir "de Mausian psychohistory" way) -- and that even when kids seem to be able to deal with things, it doesn't mean they really are. There's lots of evidence to back that, despite what KQ and others would like us to believe.
Anyway, after lots of thought, I cannot in good conscience continue to contribute. When it was something I could point to as being a relatively scholarly pursuit, there was at least a reason. However, without some kind of visible advisory of the kind you suggest on the site, I do not see it as something to which I can point to with pride. The individual articles that are very good do not make up for the "Jimbo's mom" aspect. Sometimes there is such a thing as too much information, I guess.
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could also "erase" me from the site. If you must leave things in, perhaps you could change me to a set of unrelated initials, or a number. Basically, though, I would prefer that my association with the project just go away. Also, if my name is no longer there to defend, I won't be tempted back into the fray. Please feel free to post any of this to the list, or to anyone interested. I'll stay on the list for a week or so, and will of course be in touch by e-mail.
Take care, Jimmy -- I've really enjoyed most of my time here, but I can't stay somewhere I feel is spiritually and perhaps professionally detrimental to me. Thanks so much for the project, though --
Julie