First - I don't know anything about the particulars, but thought I'd give you my take on the messages Kils left for Eloquence. There seems to be no question from what Kils said that Viking is a user name that was made up for a group of students and offspring of Kils to use. I gathered from Kils' posting that this was being used for a possible student project. In that vein, Viking and Kils were worried that younger people might wander into the site, practicing editing, web use, etc, and come across some of our articles not usually found in encyclopedias and more often found in specialty areas. Some of those articles really could be considered inappropriate for non-adults - and I think that may be something we should consider, an advisory or something?
Anyway, Kils and co thought that the rampant removal of "pornographic" materials was necessary and within their rights. When the "ban Viking" thing flared up, Kils killed Viking and removed all traces. One of Kils' reasons for all this was that he had a reputation to protect and didn't want it connected to pornography. Now, he has "kind of" apologized; At least, that's how I understand all of this. Also, From reading comments on Erik's page, the Vikings would like to do the same kind of trace wiping from the German version. If I've summarized badly, please correct me - I certainly won't be offended.
My response to this?
First, we should realize that the wikipedia is a site that might be seen as many (reading the main page) as an educational site. I don't know if child safety filters are going to catch it. I also think there are articles on the site that are certainly more education than necessary for kids (Prince Albert Piercing and Fisting come to mind) - and I think that we should do the socially responsible thing and post that somewhere. We certainly don't want an attack by the moral minority, and as yucky as I find some of those articles, I don't think they should be removed unless the project is severely redefined.
On Kils specifically, I think his actions show that, although his intentions may have been honorable, he clearly does not quite "get" the spirit and the intent of the wikipedia. Moreover, he used his sysop powers in a way that we all (I think) find unacceptable. And he has not guaranteed that that behavior would stop. So I would say that he should go back to being a user. It removes the temptation for misuse, however well-intentioned, and gives him the power to say to others that he has no way of changing content except in a wiki way.
My take on it at least FWIW
Jules
Julie Kemp wrote in part:
Some of those articles really could be considered inappropriate for non-adults - and I think that may be something we should consider, an advisory or something?
First, we should realize that the wikipedia is a site that might be seen as many (reading the main page) as an educational site. I don't know if child safety filters are going to catch it. I also think there are articles on the site that are certainly more education than necessary for kids (Prince Albert Piercing and Fisting come to mind) - and I think that we should do the socially responsible thing and post that somewhere. We certainly don't want an attack by the moral minority, and as yucky as I find some of those articles, I don't think they should be removed unless the project is severely redefined.
How about this (for [[Main Page]], after == Selected Articles ==):
:'''Warning''': Wikipedia contains material that some may consider offensive, :such as information about vulgar slang, human sexuality, and other topics. :This material will be kept to appropriate articles, of course, :but be aware that it is here, and surf according to your own sensibilities.
I would oppose *any* removal of information on the basis of offensiveness, but there's nothing wrong with a reasonable warning when offence is likely.
On Kils specifically, I think his actions show that, although his intentions may have been honorable, he clearly does not quite "get" the spirit and the intent of the wikipedia. Moreover, he used his sysop powers in a way that we all (I think) find unacceptable.
I'm not sure that this is so clear-cut. His removal of the traces of [[User:Viking]] was premature, since people are still talking about the case, but we may yet delete it to save the Vikings from future embarassment. After all, once an issue has been resolved, we don't need to harp on it. Now, claiming that sysop status gives on special authority over content is indeed an egregious violation, but did Uwe Kils actually do this? It may just be that an aggressive Viking went too far. (Kils did even make reference to "warning" the Vikings for misbehaviour.) It's not clear to me.
And he has not guaranteed that that behavior would stop. So I would say that he should go back to being a user. It removes the temptation for misuse, however well-intentioned, and gives him the power to say to others that he has no way of changing content except in a wiki way.
Well, he has agreed to be just a user, so we may not need to discuss it.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
:'''Warning''': Wikipedia contains material that some may consider offensive, :such as information about vulgar slang, human sexuality, and other topics. :This material will be kept to appropriate articles, of course, :but be aware that it is here, and surf according to your own sensibilities.
This is a bit much, I think. How about just a mode 'SafeSearch On' or 'SafeSearch Off', and perhaps a customizable tool for people who want to be more specific than that.
I would oppose *any* removal of information on the basis of offensiveness, but there's nothing wrong with a reasonable warning when offence is likely.
I generally agree with this. Content _advisories_ can be helpful to some people, but _filtering_ or _removing content_ is going down a path that will cause us more trouble than good, I think.
I can't even bear to imagine the arguments such a policy would generate!
After all, once an issue has been resolved, we don't need to harp on it.
Yeah, Kils apologized for all that happened, so we should cut him some slack.
--Jimbo
Julie-
I also think there are articles on the site that are certainly more education than necessary for kids (Prince Albert Piercing and Fisting come to mind) - and I think that we should do the socially responsible thing and post that somewhere.
We do. The main page clearly notes that we strive to be a "complete and accurate encyclopedia".
A disclaimer would IMHO send the wrong signal; some people would believe that we only say this because we have lost control over the content of Wikipedia (a totally open site after all) and people are posting pornography all over the place. We do not allow pornographic content, but we do allow human knowledge that some people might consider offensive -- I think that goes with the territory.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
A disclaimer would IMHO send the wrong signal; some people would believe that we only say this because we have lost control over the content of Wikipedia (a totally open site after all) and people are posting pornography all over the place. We do not allow pornographic content, but we do allow human knowledge that some people might consider offensive -- I think that goes with the territory.
The wrong sort of disclaimer would certainly send the wrong signal, but I don't think it's impossible to come up with something soft and tasteful.
--Jimbo