" I really cannot blame parents, school boards and other community leaders if they act to prevent children from accessing graphic images such as a bloke sucking himself off, but such action would also deny children access to thousands of well-researched articles which are not in themselves offensive.
This is going to happen anyway. We have an article on Donkey Punch and one on Dirty Sanchez, and those alone, unillustrated, are enough to take Wikipedia well out of the realm of the child-safe."
There are quite a few other problem articles in wikipedia. Examples are articles like f**k, articles with porn links like the one on porn queen Jenna Jameson, articles with pictures of or links to extreme violence like the Nick Berg one (I said nothing at the time, but the decision to have that photo showing his severed head published - even through a link and with a warning - was a disgrace) - these always were unsuitable to minors.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:53:06 +0600, Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
these always were unsuitable to minors.
Wikipedia is a wiki. That means _anyone_ can edit it, including those people who like to prey on children. Wikipedia is not suitable for minors and will be banned from schools soon enough anyway in the same way that chat rooms are banned from schools.
Wikipedia is an adult encylopedia, and should cater for adults.
Theresa
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:38:43 +0000, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:53:06 +0600, Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
these always were unsuitable to minors.
Wikipedia is a wiki. That means _anyone_ can edit it, including those people who like to prey on children. Wikipedia is not suitable for minors and will be banned from schools soon enough anyway in the same way that chat rooms are banned from schools.
Wikipedia is an adult encylopedia, and should cater for adults.
Theresa
I wouldn't like to see some Wikipedians give up on imposing some sort of respectability though. It'd be nice to have some sort of standards. I don't care whether people choose to call that censorship or not. OK many Wikipedians perhaps believe in complete unrestricted freedom in what gets put on Wikipedia (although I think most have specific topics they have "views" on), but we can't ignore that Wikipedia should cater to at least a reasonable section of the "mainstream". I think people will realise that there are articles on Wikipedia at the moment that don't remotely live up to a standard acceptable to an appreciable "mainstream" segment.
If people continue to insist on no "good taste" standards, people will stop visiting Wikipedia, and it will just become a world-wide distributed hobby.
As it is, image vandalism (yes that is not our doing, but it's damn near an unacceptable problem with some of the stuff that's been put up) and content issues would make me think twice about recommending friends or family to visit Wikipedia (particularly those who aren't my peers/contemporaries).
Zoney
Zoney wrote:
I wouldn't like to see some Wikipedians give up on imposing some sort of respectability though. It'd be nice to have some sort of standards. I don't care whether people choose to call that censorship or not. OK many Wikipedians perhaps believe in complete unrestricted freedom in what gets put on Wikipedia (although I think most have specific topics they have "views" on), but we can't ignore that Wikipedia should cater to at least a reasonable section of the "mainstream". I think people will realise that there are articles on Wikipedia at the moment that don't remotely live up to a standard acceptable to an appreciable "mainstream" segment.
If people continue to insist on no "good taste" standards, people will stop visiting Wikipedia, and it will just become a world-wide distributed hobby.
As it is, image vandalism (yes that is not our doing, but it's damn near an unacceptable problem with some of the stuff that's been put up) and content issues would make me think twice about recommending friends or family to visit Wikipedia (particularly those who aren't my peers/contemporaries).
I've marked several messages in this thread for reply, but really Zoney here and John Lee have said it all much better than I could. I completely agree with their points.
I desperately want Wikipedia to be a project with a reputation for good content - if it becomes effectively a shock site it won't be that any more. I would say a vast majority of readers* would not expect to see the most explicit of images - even on articles dealing with the subject (goatse on [[goatse]] being the much used example). What this is about for me is expectation - how can someone know to turn off images if they are not expecting this apparently reputable encyclopaedia to show such images? And why should anyone need to turn off images to use an encyclopaedia?
There is a level at which I see the points some are making here, and some with views different from mine who's opinions I respect - and I have moved my own boundaries in response to that. But there is also a level at which I can't, and extreme views that I have no understanding or respect for. I truly hope that these views won't carry the day.
I've written more than I intended - I think this thread has mostly deteriorated beyond usefulness and all I really intended to say was the first paragraph here. Frankly I would love to wash my hands of the whole subject and go back to updating the Grammy Awards - but I care too much about this project to not state my views on this very important subject.
--sannse
*74% of statistics are made up on the spot
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:38:43 +0000, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:53:06 +0600, Arno M
redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
these always were unsuitable to minors.
Wikipedia is a wiki. That means _anyone_ can edit
it, including those
people who like to prey on children. Wikipedia is
not suitable for
minors and will be banned from schools soon enough
anyway in the same
way that chat rooms are banned from schools.
Wikipedia is an adult encylopedia, and should
cater for adults.
Theresa
1) Just because preditors may edit wikipedia doesn't mean we lack editorial control. 2) Removing children from the argument doesn't really change it. Many adults don't want to run into some of this content in an encyclopedia.
Writing an encyclopedia should include a sense of who our target audience is, and this should shape policy. Rather than preditors defining who we are.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:06:40 -0800 (PST), Puddl Duk puddlduk@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:38:43 +0000, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:53:06 +0600, Arno M
redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
these always were unsuitable to minors.
Wikipedia is a wiki. That means _anyone_ can edit
it, including those
people who like to prey on children. Wikipedia is
not suitable for
minors and will be banned from schools soon enough
anyway in the same
way that chat rooms are banned from schools.
Wikipedia is an adult encylopedia, and should
cater for adults.
Theresa
- Just because preditors may edit wikipedia doesn't
mean we lack editorial control.
But it does make wikipedia as unsafe as a chatroom for children.
- Removing children from the argument doesn't really
change it. Many adults don't want to run into some of this content in an encyclopedia.
I have no argument with that. All i'm saying is leave the kiddies out of it.
Theresa
--- Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:06:40 -0800 (PST), Puddl Duk puddlduk@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:38:43 +0000, Theresa
Knott
theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:53:06 +0600, Arno M
redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
these always were unsuitable to minors.
Wikipedia is a wiki. That means _anyone_ can
edit
it, including those
people who like to prey on children. Wikipedia
is
not suitable for
minors and will be banned from schools soon
enough
anyway in the same
way that chat rooms are banned from schools.
Wikipedia is an adult encylopedia, and should
cater for adults.
Theresa
- Just because preditors may edit wikipedia
doesn't
mean we lack editorial control.
But it does make wikipedia as unsafe as a chatroom for children.
- Removing children from the argument doesn't
really
change it. Many adults don't want to run into some
of
this content in an encyclopedia.
I have no argument with that. All i'm saying is leave the kiddies out of it.
Theresa
Writing an encyclopedia should include a sense of who our target audience is, and this should <help> shape policy. Rather than preditors defining who we are.
<amended earlier comment>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com