Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them to be careful what they view? As Wikipedia's popularity increases, so do the njmber of kids who access it-mainly for homework help. As a result the chances of young users coming across such material are high so perhaps a warning like this will be for the best? Also there may also be some adults who for various reasons would prefer not to view such content.
Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling individual pages that actually contained such content.
Steve
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them to be careful what they view? As Wikipedia's popularity increases, so do the njmber of kids who access it-mainly for homework help. As a result the chances of young users coming across such material are high so perhaps a warning like this will be for the best? Also there may also be some adults who for various reasons would prefer not to view such content.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett stated for the record:
Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling individual pages that actually contained such content.
Steve
And exactly whose POINT OF VIEW would decide which pages those were?
- -- Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.com | learn from this. --Calvin
On 5/14/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling individual pages that actually contained such content.
Steve
And exactly whose POINT OF VIEW would decide which pages those were?
Calm down, please, that makes 4 angry messages in a row you've sent.
At the risk of launching this topic again, shall I reiterate that no one who wanted to see the images/articles (or, more precisely, no one who wanted to see tham and had full control over their internet access) would be prevented from seeing them. Which precise articles were labelled in which way would then be an issue comparable with which articles are labelled {{NPOV}} or {{verify}}.
Steve
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Steve Bennett stated for the record: > Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling > individual pages that actually contained such content.
And exactly whose POINT OF VIEW would decide which pages those were?
That sums up all the potential problems pretty well. On top of that, by categorizing the 2++ (and lets not forget to add PG-13 and NC-17 ratings) as minor "friendly" or not, you create targets for vandals and trolls to insert naughty thoughts.
There's already a small software industry out there doing this. Will the schools that use this software care how Wiki marks it? Will it actually change anything other than how much time contributors use marking and unmarking articles instead of research and writing? I don't see any benefit to using a lot of contributor time marking things as "safe" or "naughty", not to mention the aforementioned POV wars over what is and is not naughty.~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! MessengerÂ’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Who's POV is it as if a article should be made a GA?
On 5/14/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett stated for the record:
Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling individual pages that actually contained such content.
Steve
And exactly whose POINT OF VIEW would decide which pages those were?
Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.com | learn from this. --Calvin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEZ1Y6MAt1wyd9d+URAkKgAJ9Gjx5e2lLTC2cfRSV4PPa3IBDQXACcDjW+ XY8Xz9vP1MFZCD3WtJj6qD0= =Rxyu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sean Barrett wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett stated for the record:
Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling individual pages that actually contained such content.
Steve
And exactly whose POINT OF VIEW would decide which pages those were?
[[WP:TOBY]] is still the only NPOV solution (assuming there's a "problem").
One idea, as I've suggested before, would be to make a special version which is censored for minors (with various articles blocked). This version, also, may not be editable. This would make it more school friendly, as many have a ban on outside communication (editing surely is a form of communication.)
On 5/14/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Doing this would be common sense. But then, IMHO, so would labelling individual pages that actually contained such content.
Steve
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them to be careful what they view? As Wikipedia's popularity increases, so do the njmber of kids who access it-mainly for homework help. As a result the chances of young users coming across such material are high so perhaps a warning like this will be for the best? Also there may also be some adults who for various reasons would prefer not to view such content.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors
We could combine it with our general disclaimer.
"WARNING: Wikipedia may or may not describe reality as it actually is. It may or may not include accurate or inaccurate information which may or may not offend you. If you search for an article about a sexual topic such as ''autofellatio'', it may include information about the sexual topic in question. Then again, it may not. Conversely, if you search for information about ''Drosophila melanogaster'', the article may not include any actual information about ''Drosophila melanogaster'' at all but, in fact, a 14-year-old's opinion about the sexual orientation of one of his friends or classmates. The article may or may not be illustrated in either case. You may or may not trust Wikipedia, but if you do so blindly, please [[contact us]] for information about affordable beachside properties."
Erik
On 5/15/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them to be careful what they view?
The existing disclaimers (which are linked to from the bottom of every single page on the entire wiki) pretty much cover it, but then again noone seems to read the disclaimers.
On 15/05/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them to be careful what they view?
The existing disclaimers (which are linked to from the bottom of every single page on the entire wiki) pretty much cover it, but then again noone seems to read the disclaimers.
Their own problem.
Rob Church
On 15/05/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Their own problem.
Rob Church
Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial?
On 5/15/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/05/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Their own problem.
Rob Church
Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial?
No. That is thier parents job. Parents will do it lovingly and responsibly. We would make a complete arse of it.
Theresa
On 15/05/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/05/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Their own problem.
Rob Church
Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial?
No. That is thier parents job. Parents will do it lovingly and responsibly. We would make a complete arse of it.
Agree completely.
Rob Church
On 5/16/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial?
No. That is thier parents job. Parents will do it lovingly and responsibly. We would make a complete arse of it.
Not only that, but the various jurisdictions which Wikipedia serves pages to undoubtedly have different ideas about who is a child and who is an adult, and different ideas about what is "adult material". Attempting to institute a system of warnings or filters would undoubtedly leave holes, and that would arguably put us in a worse position than simply having the disclaimers and leaving everything up to users.
We should try to keep potentially offensive stuff off the main page, a fairly simple task. That gives every visitor the opportunity to read the disclaimers, and anything after that is their problem.
On 15/05/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/05/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Their own problem.
Rob Church
Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial?
What I define as "adult" is not going to show up on Wikipedia outside of an educational context. Kids are naturally curious. I'd sooner they got the giggles over someone's penis on a web site and had the opportunity to learn something about their own bodies from a probably-accurate source than browsed porn sites and learned something about the profits that can be had from exploiting people.
Rob Church
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Prasad J stated for the record:
On 15/05/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Their own problem.
Rob Church
Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial?
No.
- -- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
On 5/15/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Prasad J stated for the record:
On 15/05/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Their own problem.
Rob Church
Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial?
No.
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
If people want to deter kids from coming across certain material on the internet, it's their responsibility to install blocking software. Wikipedia says is in BIG bold letters it's an encyclopedia. It's common sense for sexual material to be included so I'm against yet another disclaimer.
Mgm
On 5/16/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If people want to deter kids from coming across certain material on the internet, it's their responsibility to install blocking software. Wikipedia says is in BIG bold letters it's an encyclopedia. It's common sense for sexual material to be included so I'm against yet another disclaimer.
Point me to another encyclopaedia with photographic images of erections or clitorises, and I might agree.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/16/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If people want to deter kids from coming across certain material on the internet, it's their responsibility to install blocking software. Wikipedia says is in BIG bold letters it's an encyclopedia. It's common sense for sexual material to be included so I'm against yet another disclaimer.
Point me to another encyclopaedia with photographic images of erections or clitorises, and I might agree.
If cameras had been around back then, Encyclopédie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die) probably would have.
I had a medical encyclopedia/reference library that used to contain all sorts of naughty pictures that I used to giggle at, and there was no need for those texts to have disclaimers in big bold letters.
On 5/16/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/16/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If people want to deter kids from coming across certain material on the internet, it's their responsibility to install blocking software.
Wikipedia
says is in BIG bold letters it's an encyclopedia. It's common sense for sexual material to be included so I'm against yet another disclaimer.
Point me to another encyclopaedia with photographic images of erections or clitorises, and I might agree.
If cameras had been around back then, Encyclopédie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die) probably would have.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/16/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I had a medical encyclopedia/reference library that used to contain all sorts of naughty pictures that I used to giggle at, and there was no need for those texts to have disclaimers in big bold letters.
Photos of erections?
Steve
On 5/16/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
I had a medical encyclopedia/reference library that used to contain all sorts of naughty pictures that I used to giggle at, and there was no
need
for those texts to have disclaimers in big bold letters.
Photos of erections?
I don't remember seeing erections, but there was plenty of interesting pictures of people in various states of undress and activity that I found interesting.
On 5/16/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If people want to deter kids from coming across certain material on the internet, it's their responsibility to install blocking software.
Wikipedia
says is in BIG bold letters it's an encyclopedia. It's common sense for sexual material to be included so I'm against yet another disclaimer.
Point me to another encyclopaedia with photographic images of erections or clitorises, and I might agree.
I have an encyclopaedic reference work on Forensic Medicine from the 1950's which is an interesting glimpse to that eras moral standards. The pictures about the various appearance of female genitalia which have experienced various transformative actions including childbirth, voluntary penetration and involuntary penetration are depicted by photographs of preparates taken from cadavers, pictures of underage ethnic minorities (the question I would have there is if there was informed consent for the photography, although admittedly, the faces of the children are not shown, so arguably not covered under a strict privacy concern).
By The By, the lethal dose for nicotine is given, but the entry on cannabis states that it is completely non-toxic. O Tempora, O Mores.
Prasad J wrote:
Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial?
We have an ethical responsibility to treat sensitive topics with seriousness and deep respect.
We have discussed in the past having some sort of categorization for "adult material" but realized that there is no neutral way to do it. What we do instead is have neutral, factual categories that leave it up to filtering companies or whoever to do as they like.
We can reach no consensus on whether or not a particular article is suitable for children. We can reach consensus on whether or not a particular article is about human sexuality or crime or drugs.
Now, my own view is that even among extremely conservative parents, even wikipedia articles on fairly hair-raising topics are sufficiently factual and dull that *if* their children are searching on the internet for the topic, the parents should be quite happy that the kids come across wikipedia instead of something else.
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Now, my own view is that even among extremely conservative parents, even wikipedia articles on fairly hair-raising topics are sufficiently factual and dull that *if* their children are searching on the internet for the topic, the parents should be quite happy that the kids come across wikipedia instead of something else.
I would love for us to test this empirically. I suspect the images on our anatomy pages would raise a few eyebrows.
Steve
Everything on our site is supposed to be encyclopedic. Even articles about pornographic websites are written in a dispassionate, neutral, and almost completely bored tone. If kids are on the internet looking for "adult material", they'll probably find Wikipedia about as exciting as looking up dirty words in a dictionary.
FF
On 5/15/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/05/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Their own problem.
Rob Church
Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Everything on our site is supposed to be encyclopedic. Even articles about pornographic websites are written in a dispassionate, neutral, and almost completely bored tone.
Indeed. And where, but on Wikipedia, do you find a "Pornography Portal" that includes free content photography of porn stars, and fun facts such as:
Did you know
...that the Miller test is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labelled obscene? ...that Linda Lovelace, a porn actress who starred in the groundbreaking pornographic movie Deep Throat, later became an advocate against pornography? ...that The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife is an 1820 woodcut by Hokusai depicting a woman sexually molested by a pair of octopuses, perhaps the first instance of tentacle rape depicted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Pornography
It makes me proud to be a Wikipedian.
Erik
And the portal is so well-maintained too. More proof that most Wikipedians are male!
On 17/05/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
And the portal is so well-maintained too. More proof that most Wikipedians are male!
It takes the arrogance of a male to assume that.
Rob Church
Just an idea, but for articles not suitable for minors ICRAhttp://www.icra.org/could be used.
On 5/17/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/05/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
And the portal is so well-maintained too. More proof that most Wikipedians are male!
It takes the arrogance of a male to assume that.
Rob Church _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Just an idea, but for articles not suitable for minors ICRAhttp://www.icra.org/could be used.
I'm not dreaming, we *did* discuss all this like 2 months ago didn't we?
Steve
I didn't subscribe back then. No need to be uncivil.
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Just an idea, but for articles not suitable for minors ICRAhttp://www.icra.org/could be used.
I'm not dreaming, we *did* discuss all this like 2 months ago didn't we?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I didn't subscribe back then. No need to be uncivil.
Oh, sorry, didn't mean that as an attack on you - the whole discussion seems to have started up again with no reference to the previous one. It was a bit trippy.
No incivility intended!
Steve
Thanks Steve!
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I didn't subscribe back then. No need to be uncivil.
Oh, sorry, didn't mean that as an attack on you - the whole discussion seems to have started up again with no reference to the previous one. It was a bit trippy.
No incivility intended!
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 17 May 2006, at 07:39, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Everything on our site is supposed to be encyclopedic. Even articles about pornographic websites are written in a dispassionate, neutral, and almost completely bored tone.
Indeed. And where, but on Wikipedia, do you find a "Pornography Portal" that includes free content photography of porn stars, and fun facts such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Pornography
It makes me proud to be a Wikipedian.
Illustrated with free pictures too, remarkably. Which shows that if we can get these we should delete all the non free pictures to encourage this sort of quality content.
Justinc
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them to be careful what they view?
Perhaps Wikipedia needs something like the entry page on http://www.bigtits.com ?
On 15/05/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them to be careful what they view?
Perhaps Wikipedia needs something like the entry page on http://www.bigtits.com ?
I vote for pink on black though.
Rob Church