Skyring wrote:
We should have some mechanism in place where Jimbo can get up on a talk show and say "We thought of that already, and you have to do this, this and that to see all the objectionable material, so it's manageable, and control is in the hands of parents, teachers, school boards and so on."
If you know my personal opinions (which, by the way, I do not think should be controlling policy on these matters) on the issue of censorship and what kids should be looking at, you'll know how extremely unlikely it would be that I would be on a talk show saying anything of the sort.
I prefer to be able to say: "We thought of that already, and we have gone through a long and difficult process of editorial judgment to treat delicate topics in a respectful and educational manner. Nothing in Wikipedia is intentionally offensive, but of course there will always be people who are offended by something. We do our best to take a serious and thoughtful approach to these matters."
I have at times been supportive of the idea of tagging, and if that is the best way to treat delicate topics in a respectful and educational manner, then fine. But I think the default view of Wikipedia should not be affected by such measures, so I would never be saying "oh, but you have to do this, this, and that to see this stuff".
--Jimbo
If you know my personal opinions (which, by the way, I do not think should be controlling policy on these matters) on the issue of censorship and what kids should be looking at, you'll know how extremely unlikely it would be that I would be on a talk show saying anything of the sort.
I prefer to be able to say: "We thought of that already, and we have gone through a long and difficult process of editorial judgment to treat delicate topics in a respectful and educational manner. Nothing in Wikipedia is intentionally offensive, but of course there will always be people who are offended by something. We do our best to take a serious and thoughtful approach to these matters."
I have at times been supportive of the idea of tagging, and if that is the best way to treat delicate topics in a respectful and educational manner, then fine. But I think the default view of Wikipedia should not be affected by such measures, so I would never be saying "oh, but you have to do this, this, and that to see this stuff".
--Jimbo
I dream of a world where my children (eventually), and Jimbo's children, and everyone else's children can browse wikipedia in a state where they can still see a picture of autofellatio on the article autofellatio but can go to the article on USB or the main page and not see a picture of some guy's anus blown up to cover the whole page. I think that we should stick to not censoring wikipedia at all and it really isn't up to us to take care of what people can see, it's the parent's, teachers, or whoevers job as guardians to make sure that the kids aren't browsing into the nudity on wikipedia which btw legitimate pictures of nudity on articles are few and far between.
-Jtkiefer
On 8/18/05, Jtkiefer jtkiefer@wordzen.net wrote:
(Jimbo said:)
If you know my personal opinions (which, by the way, I do not think should be controlling policy on these matters) on the issue of censorship and what kids should be looking at, you'll know how extremely unlikely it would be that I would be on a talk show saying anything of the sort.
I prefer to be able to say: "We thought of that already, and we have gone through a long and difficult process of editorial judgment to treat delicate topics in a respectful and educational manner. Nothing in Wikipedia is intentionally offensive, but of course there will always be people who are offended by something. We do our best to take a serious and thoughtful approach to these matters."
I have at times been supportive of the idea of tagging, and if that is the best way to treat delicate topics in a respectful and educational manner, then fine. But I think the default view of Wikipedia should not be affected by such measures, so I would never be saying "oh, but you have to do this, this, and that to see this stuff".
I dream of a world where my children (eventually), and Jimbo's children, and everyone else's children can browse wikipedia in a state where they can still see a picture of autofellatio on the article autofellatio but can go to the article on USB or the main page and not see a picture of some guy's anus blown up to cover the whole page. I think that we should stick to not censoring wikipedia at all and it really isn't up to us to take care of what people can see, it's the parent's, teachers, or whoevers job as guardians to make sure that the kids aren't browsing into the nudity on wikipedia which btw legitimate pictures of nudity on articles are few and far between.
I appreciate both positions, but in the meantime, we live in the real world where some parents and teachers and clergymen are going to apply pressure to stop their children or students or congregations from using an online encyclopedia that contains material that they consider objectionable, regardless of how sensitively it is presented or how much we might wish for there to be no censorship at all.
These sort of people tend to be firm in their convictions and vocal in presenting their opinions, and if there is a picture of autofellatio or a gigantic anus in WP, then they will find it and use it against us. I rather think that they will not be swayed by the arguments noted above. Just how tasteful and educational is a picture of a naked guy sucking himself? It's hardly Michaelangelo's David, is it?
Skyring wrote:
I appreciate both positions, but in the meantime, we live in the real world where some parents and teachers and clergymen are going to apply pressure to stop their children or students or congregations from using an online encyclopedia that contains material that they consider objectionable, regardless of how sensitively it is presented or how much we might wish for there to be no censorship at all.
I really don't think that the best way to deal with closed-mindedness and dogmatism is to surrender to it. Of course, that carries its own special risk, because we might end up being dogmatic in our response. They key here, it seems, is to emphasize the Wiki philosophy of good faith, openness, and /respect/ that all people have it in them to be mature and responsible /without /having someone to tell them what they can and can't know and what they can and can't look at.
Still, some people just can't be reasoned with. Some people will object to any site on the internet that isn't dedicated to our Lord and Savior. Others will be disgusted that we fairly consider perspectives on intelligent design, and write us off as hacks. That these people will boycott Wikipedia, I think, is unfortunate, but not something we need to be concerning ourselves with.
These sort of people tend to be firm in their convictions and vocal in presenting their opinions, and if there is a picture of autofellatio or a gigantic anus in WP, then they will find it and use it against us. I rather think that they will not be swayed by the arguments noted above. Just how tasteful and educational is a picture of a naked guy sucking himself? It's hardly Michaelangelo's David, is it?
No it isn't, and we do have to draw the line somewhere. Where that line is drawn right now is loosely analagous to a "rational basis" review; if the reviewer can think of some possible legitimate use for the image, we keep it. Only images that have no possible encyclopedic usefulness (such as shock images, blatant pornography, and nonsense) get deleted. Realistically, I don't see anything wrong with that paradigm. We can't let the fears and dogmas of the most extreme and conservative people in society become our own fears and dogmas, too.
- Ryan
On 8/19/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Skyring wrote:
I appreciate both positions, but in the meantime, we live in the real world where some parents and teachers and clergymen are going to apply pressure to stop their children or students or congregations from using an online encyclopedia that contains material that they consider objectionable, regardless of how sensitively it is presented or how much we might wish for there to be no censorship at all.
I really don't think that the best way to deal with closed-mindedness and dogmatism is to surrender to it. Of course, that carries its own special risk, because we might end up being dogmatic in our response. They key here, it seems, is to emphasize the Wiki philosophy of good faith, openness, and /respect/ that all people have it in them to be mature and responsible /without /having someone to tell them what they can and can't know and what they can and can't look at.
I'm certainly not advocating surrendering to narrow-mindedness. On the contrary.
We can't do a real lot about the attitudes of people whose minds are closed, but it is hardly fair on the children of such people to be deprived of a useful resource. I'd like to see some effort being made to reach these children. Trying to sway their parents with arguments that haven't worked in the past is not a strategy for success.
On 8/18/05, Skyring <skyring@gmail
I appreciate both positions, but in the meantime, we live in the real world where some parents and teachers and clergymen are going to apply pressure to stop their children or students or congregations from using an online encyclopedia that contains material that they consider objectionable, regardless of how sensitively it is presented or how much we might wish for there to be no censorship at all.
Yes
These sort of people tend to be firm in their convictions and vocal in presenting their opinions,
Yes
and if there is a picture of autofellatio or a gigantic anus in WP, then they will find it and use it against us.
Well they can try.
I rather think that they will not be swayed by the arguments noted above.
Well you can't win 'em all.
Just how tasteful and educational is a picture of a naked guy sucking himself? It's hardly Michaelangelo's David, is it?
It's not art though. It's educational in the sense that is shows what autofellatio is in the same way as a photo of a microscope shows what a microscope is. It doesn't harm anyone. it doesn't show something will give people nightmares . It doesn't exploit anyone or show someone being harmed and it doesn't depict an unsafe act. I wonder what people's objection's to it might be (apart from it's yucky).
Theresa
Hi Theresa
I feel enlarged by your constructive post but the real reason for this email is to thank you for my laughter at "apart from it's yucky".
Bless you!
Theo
It's not art though. It's educational in the sense that is shows what autofellatio is in the same way as a photo of a microscope shows what a microscope is. It doesn't harm anyone. it doesn't show something will give people nightmares . It doesn't exploit anyone or show someone being harmed and it doesn't depict an unsafe act. I wonder what people's objection's to it might be (apart from it's yucky).
"Enlarged"? Hmm, perhaps not quite the word you wanted...
:-)
Stan
Theo Clarke wrote:
Hi Theresa
I feel enlarged by your constructive post but the real reason for this email is to thank you for my laughter at "apart from it's yucky".
Bless you!
Theo
It's not art though. It's educational in the sense that is shows what autofellatio is in the same way as a photo of a microscope shows what a microscope is. It doesn't harm anyone. it doesn't show something will give people nightmares . It doesn't exploit anyone or show someone being harmed and it doesn't depict an unsafe act. I wonder what people's objection's to it might be (apart from it's yucky).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l