Sorry, I get mine in digest form -- I'm sure I'm breaking a thread.
Tony's reply to me included the following:
In my opinion we should just stick it into "What Wikipedia is not". Wikipedia is not a classroom-friendly environment.
If this is true, Tony (and perhaps it is), I think it's sad. Part of the vision Jimbo often shares is the idea of sending Wikipedia to poor schools in developing nations -- I'd hate to think we were abandoning that dream. If we are, maybe I need to take some time and think about what I'm really doing at Wikipedia: granted, the ideal of zero censorship is its own noble enterprise, but is it the noble enterprise I signed on for? A difficult question. I'm not advocating paranoia (deleting all sex-related articles and pretending humans are born under cabbages). I'm suggesting that there is a difference between an article seriously detailing what a sexual practice is and an article with a picture of a man sucking his penis. The first one I can see in a school -- perhaps a liberal-minded school, but a school nonetheless. I can't really envision a school where the picture is acceptable. Maybe I'm not imaginative enough.
David Gerard commented in reply to me:
What other classes of photos would you require be links rather than inline in this case, and would the planned option to have images as either links or inline be of use in this context?
- d.
David, I'm not completely clear what you're asking me. If I understand you correctly, I'd argue that any explicit depiction of violent killing or dismemberment would also qualify as a linked photo topic. Again, it's not because Wikipedia should describe in detail the horror of what humanity does to humanity. It's that seeing it visually depicted can be overwhelming. We should absolutely talk about Nick Berg. We should absolutely give people the opportunity to watch a video of what happened to Nick Berg. I don't think it therefore follows that we need to stream that video into the article directly. The goal is to educate and inform. If people honestly can't see a difference....well, I'm baffled, and I guess I'll have to think about how to explain the distinction. And the suggested option would be a good one, David, assuming that the default was to link. If the default is "inline", that means that most of the users we'll drive off will be driven off, since they'll see whatever image shocks them before they discover the toggle switch in "my preferences".
Christiaan said in reply to me:
sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm
afraid I'll have to
stop recommending it to most of the people I
currently recommend it to
(normally families with bright teenage children,
given my work in a
high school).
If they're bright I'm sure they'll make their own way here.
Christiaan
I'm sure they will, Christiaan. I'm not suggesting that what I do is all that remarkable. But I am sure we all do recommend the site to others (I'm personally responsible for about a dozen people knowing and relying on Wikipedia for information, though sadly all refuse to edit -- I'm sure most of you have invited many more than I have), and so I think it's legitimate to ask us all to consider whether we will still do this.
Recently, in my area, the publically owned television station (a type of tv called "Public Access" in my area) banned a program from its channel that was broadcasting pornographic images (the program was called "Mike Hunt TV"....say it a few times fast if you don't get it). "Mike" argued that the airwaves were public, and he had as much right as the next person to say and show what he liked on his program. Personally, I ended up disagreeing with him: no one I know watches the informative programming on Public Access, mostly because it has become known as a home for pornographic images and lunatic POV rants. I'd like it if Wikipedia didn't become Public Access -- if people didn't worry about clicking a Wikipedia link at work or in front of their kids (just as people in my area now don't often click to Public Access to see what's on....because they fear they know exactly what will be on).
Are we making a usable encyclopedia, or an experiment in free speech and democracy? We seem to keep saying we're an encyclopedia project. Well, if we are, I think we need to ask ourselves how to reach the broadest possible audience with the most possible information. If that's not the goal of an encyclopedia, I don't know what is. And it seems to me that providing linked images provides almost the same breadth of information, while improving the size of our audience by a measurably larger amount.
Thanks for taking me seriously -- always makes me feel better, even when everyone disagrees with me. :-)
James R.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
James Rosenzweig said:
Part of the vision Jimbo often shares is the idea of sending Wikipedia to poor schools in developing nations -- I'd hate to think we were abandoning that dream.
I don't see why he should. We've been discussing ways in which Wikipedia material could be made classroom-friendly over the past day or two. But key to this would be, in my opinion, uncoupling the goods train from the engine. Effectively create a vetted snapshot of Wikipedia, all set to last safe version, with certain entries bowdlerized if thought necessary.
I don't see why he should. We've been discussing ways in which Wikipedia material could be made classroom-friendly over the past day or two. But key to this would be, in my opinion, uncoupling the goods train from the engine. Effectively create a vetted snapshot of Wikipedia, all set to last safe version, with certain entries bowdlerized if thought necessary.
Why should I have to that? Why don't you create a devetted snapshot of wikipedia with certian entries debowdlerized if thought necessary?
geni said:
I don't see why he should. We've been discussing ways in which Wikipedia material could be made classroom-friendly over the past day or two. But key to this would be, in my opinion, uncoupling the goods train from the engine. Effectively create a vetted snapshot of Wikipedia, all set to last safe version, with certain entries bowdlerized if thought necessary.
Why should I have to that? Why don't you create a devetted snapshot of wikipedia with certian entries debowdlerized if thought necessary?
Because that would require all of our editors to bowdlerize all of their edits for an audience of schoolchildren instead of adults.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
geni said:
Why should I have to that? Why don't you create a devetted snapshot of wikipedia with certian entries debowdlerized if thought necessary?
Because that would require all of our editors to bowdlerize all of their edits for an audience of schoolchildren instead of adults.
I think we are talking about at most a small fraction of 1% of the content on Wikipedia that might need some sort of special treatment. It's a bit of a broad exageration to claim ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL of their edits.
BTW, I quite agree with the sentiments that James W. Rosenzweig has quite eloquently expressed.
Bkonrad
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
It's a bit of a broad exageration to claim ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL of their edits.
No, it's absolutely true. Just one goes and vandalizes the article on the American Revolution, on one day, and you'll have school governors freaking out.
Huh? What does the ever-present problem with vandalism have to do with placing images potentially offensive to many behind a link instead of inline (or what you seem to characterize as "bowlderizing")?
Whether some articles might contain offensive vandalism for a short time is a very different matter from what is accepted as appropriate content by the community (and by extension by the MediaWiki foundation). Both may pose problems to school administrators and parents regarding the suitability of Wikipedia for children, but the vast majority of vandalism is not much different from what is scrawled on bathroom walls or heard in the schoolyard. Given that most such vandalism is quickly removed, it is of an entirely different nature than more or less permanent content sanctioned by the community.
Bkonrad
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
It's a bit of a broad exageration to claim ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL of their edits.
No, it's absolutely true. Just one goes and vandalizes the article on the American Revolution, on one day, and you'll have school governors freaking out.
Huh? What does the ever-present problem with vandalism have to do with placing images potentially offensive to many behind a link instead of inline (or what you seem to characterize as "bowlderizing")?
Both of them are unacceptable for classroom materials. Getting the well behaved users to politely bowdlerize their contributions in order to fly under the school board radar would not solve the problem because the presence of badly behaved users and casual vandals will still produce an environment too unpredictable for classroom use.
Both may pose problems to school administrators and parents regarding the suitability of Wikipedia for children, but the vast majority of vandalism is not much different from what is scrawled on bathroom walls or heard in the schoolyard.
Those actions are also subject to sanction in schools.
Given that most such vandalism is quickly removed, it is of an entirely different nature than more or less permanent content sanctioned by the community.
Absolutely. The two are distinct problems, but both render live Wikis and other volatile web environments unsuitable for use in schools. Using a filtered Wiki is much more sensible.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
It's a bit of a broad exageration to claim ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL of their edits.
No, it's absolutely true. Just one goes and vandalizes the article on the American Revolution, on one day, and you'll have school governors freaking out.
Huh? What does the ever-present problem with vandalism have to do with placing images potentially offensive to many behind a link instead of inline (or what you seem to characterize as "bowlderizing")?
Both of them are unacceptable for classroom materials. Getting the well behaved users to politely bowdlerize their contributions in order to fly under the school board radar would not solve the problem because the presence of badly behaved users and casual vandals will still produce an environment too unpredictable for classroom use.
Both may pose problems to school administrators and parents regarding the suitability of Wikipedia for children, but the vast majority of vandalism is not much different from what is scrawled on bathroom walls or heard in the schoolyard.
Those actions are also subject to sanction in schools.
Given that most such vandalism is quickly removed, it is of an entirely different nature than more or less permanent content sanctioned by the community.
Absolutely. The two are distinct problems, but both render live Wikis and other volatile web environments unsuitable for use in schools. Using a filtered Wiki is much more sensible.
But still don't see how anything you said here validates your earlier assertion that all editors would have to bowlderize all their edits.
Bkonrad
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
[...]
Absolutely. The two are distinct problems, but both render live Wikis and other volatile web environments unsuitable for use in schools. Using a filtered Wiki is much more sensible.
But still don't see how anything you said here validates your earlier assertion that all editors would have to bowlderize all their edits.
Do you deny that it's true? Would an encyclopedia containing entries for Dirty Sanchez and Donkey punch *really* be acceptable for classroom use? Would not all edits by all users have to conform to standards acceptable in a classroom environment?
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
[...]
Absolutely. The two are distinct problems, but both render live Wikis and other volatile web environments unsuitable for use in schools. Using a filtered Wiki is much more sensible.
But still don't see how anything you said here validates your earlier assertion that all editors would have to bowlderize all their edits.
Do you deny that it's true? Would an encyclopedia containing entries for Dirty Sanchez and Donkey punch *really* be acceptable for classroom use? Would not all edits by all users have to conform to standards acceptable in a classroom environment?
Do I deny the assertion that ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL their edits? Yes, it is a false proposition on the face of it. I just made an edit to an article which was in no way "bowlderized". Hundreds of editors make thousands of edits every day in which there is no consideration of bowlderization whatsoever.
Bkonrad
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Do I deny the assertion that ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL their edits?
Nitpicking.
Well, you were making a huge generalization, when in fact there is probably less than a small fraction of 1% of the articles in Wikipedia that might require some sort of special treatment. That seems a rather large nit.
Bkonrad
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Do I deny the assertion that ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL their edits?
Nitpicking.
Well, you were making a huge generalization, when in fact there is probably less than a small fraction of 1% of the articles in Wikipedia that might require some sort of special treatment. That seems a rather large nit.
Absolutely not. *All* articles and *all* edits and *all* editors would have to check their edits to make sure they conformed to whatever K12 standards we decided to adopt. There would be absolutely no exceptions.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Do I deny the assertion that ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL their edits?
Nitpicking.
Well, you were making a huge generalization, when in fact there is probably less than a small fraction of 1% of the articles in Wikipedia that might require some sort of special treatment. That seems a rather large nit.
Absolutely not. *All* articles and *all* edits and *all* editors would have to check their edits to make sure they conformed to whatever K12 standards we decided to adopt. There would be absolutely no exceptions.
I find your lack of pants^H^H^H^H^Hfaith in our editors' common sense disturbing.
Nicholas Knight said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Absolutely not. *All* articles and *all* edits and *all* editors would have to check their edits to make sure they conformed to whatever K12 standards we decided to adopt. There would be absolutely no exceptions.
I find your lack of faith in our editors' common sense disturbing.
I think you're reaching there. I have every faith in our editors' ability to meet any requirements placed on them. They are not required to write for K12 at present, however.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Do I deny the assertion that ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL their edits?
Nitpicking.
Well, you were making a huge generalization, when in fact there is probably less than a small fraction of 1% of the articles in Wikipedia that might require some sort of special treatment. That seems a rather large nit.
Absolutely not. *All* articles and *all* edits and *all* editors would have to check their edits to make sure they conformed to whatever K12 standards we decided to adopt. There would be absolutely no exceptions.
Nonsense. For more than 99% of the articles there would be absolutely no question regarding whether or not the content is suitable.
Bkonrad
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Nonsense. For more than 99% of the articles there would be absolutely no question regarding whether or not the content is suitable.
I think we're talking to cross purposes. Your statement does not contradict mine.
Yes, I think there is some misuderstanding. I do not understand how you can maintain that all editors would have to bowlderize all of their edits when for more than 99% of the articles there is no consideration whatsoever of bowlderization being an issue.
Bkonrad
Bill Konrad said:
I do not understand how you can maintain that all editors would have to bowlderize all of their edits when for more than 99% of the articles there is no consideration whatsoever of bowlderization being an issue.
Well there you go. Who said that it wouldn't be an issue in all edits, for all editors? Suppose we had a rule saying "no use of the word 'sparrow'". You could argue that only a tiny minority of articles would need to be changed to conform to this rule, but the end result would still be an encyclopedia missing the word "sparrow", and into which it was not permitted to edit an article to make it include the word sparrow. Thus all edits, all editors and all articles would be affected by the anti-sparrow rule. For people who hated the word "sparrow", it would be a lot easier for them to produce a filtered snapshot of Wikipedia that did not contain the word sparrow, and this would also keep instruction creep to a minimum. People who don't care about the word "sparrow" can use it in articles in complete ignorance that it is anathema to a certain target audience, choosing to use it whenever they think it is appropriate. Thus references to the utterances of Robert Hellenga, Nigel Balchin, Salim Ali, Val Henry Gielgud, Kent L. Koppelman, Caroline Chesbro, Fred Bodsworth, Terry Lane: Sparrows Fall,, Mary Kevin O'Rourke, Janet Green, Benjamin Franklin, Dick Cheney, Alexander Pope, William Shakespeare and of course the bible would not need to be bowdlerized for the sake of sparrow-haters. The word could be used when its use was appropriate and encyclopedic.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
I do not understand how you can maintain that all editors would have to bowlderize all of their edits when for more than 99% of the articles there is no consideration whatsoever of bowlderization being an issue.
Well there you go. Who said that it wouldn't be an issue in all edits, for all editors?
I do for one. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single article that I've contributed to in a significant way that would likely ever need any sort of bowlderization to meet any reasonable sort of acceptability (not some hypothetical extreme form of censorship).
Suppose we had a rule saying "no use of the word 'sparrow'".
Now you're just being even more exagerratedly silly.
Bkonrad
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Suppose we had a rule saying "no use of the word 'sparrow'".
Now you're just being even more exagerratedly silly.
Absolutely not. I'm trying to illustrate that it is technically easier for a group that has a specific need for bowdlerized content to filter existing unbowdlerized content than to require all editors to edit to yet another limitation of their expression, and that instruction creep of this kind is both undesirable (because it limits appropriate use of certain words, concepts and images) and unnecessary (because only the group in question knows at any given time what it does and does not find acceptable to it).
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Suppose we had a rule saying "no use of the word 'sparrow'".
Now you're just being even more exagerratedly silly.
Absolutely not. I'm trying to illustrate that it is technically easier for a group that has a specific need for bowdlerized content to filter existing unbowdlerized content than to require all editors to edit to yet another limitation of their expression, and that instruction creep of this kind is both undesirable (because it limits appropriate use of certain words, concepts and images) and unnecessary (because only the group in question knows at any given time what it does and does not find acceptable to it).
Well, I do not find your arguments convincing. I am in agreement with several others who have indicated that if we as a community cannot come to some agreement about not openly displaying patently offensive images, then I may need to reconsider how much I want to be associated with such a community. I mean, I love the openness and freedom of Wikipedia, but there are limits to most everything within the scale of human experience. I think we need to aim for the semi-mythical Golden Mean in which the vast majority of the content is acceptable to the vast majority of people, even if it means excluding or "bowlderizing" a tiny fraction of content at the extreme edges.
Bkonrad
Bill Konrad said:
I think we need to aim for the semi-mythical Golden Mean in which the vast majority of the content is acceptable to the vast majority of people, even if it means excluding or "bowlderizing" a tiny fraction of content at the extreme edges.
We already have processes to do that, and they're in operation on a daily basis, on an article-by-article, picture-by-picture basis. The argument here seems to stem from the fact that, so far, we have not reached a consensus that the item in question is either acceptable for inline use or for linking, nor a consensus to delete it. If a consensus had been found for any of those, we would not be having this discussion. On the other hand I think we're getting towards a working conensus now. We currently seem to have an inlined drawing (not ideal, I think Rama can do better) and a link to the photographic image underneath.
Absolutely not. I'm trying to illustrate that it is technically easier for a group that has a specific need for bowdlerized content to filter existing unbowdlerized content than to require all editors to edit to yet another limitation of their expression,
Except that your demonstartion fails in that it would be very little effort to add the word sparrow to the spam blacklist
geni said:
Absolutely not. I'm trying to illustrate that it is technically easier for a group that has a specific need for bowdlerized content to filter existing unbowdlerized content than to require all editors to edit to yet another limitation of their expression,
Except that your demonstartion fails in that it would be very little effort to add the word sparrow to the spam blacklist
I don't see that it does. Editors would still use the word sparrow and end up having to think up some alternative that was close but not quite the same. We'd end up with a poorer encyclopedia, even if you had this simple technical fix (which doesn't exist for pictures in any case).