--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:59 PM
> Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't
> censored because it allows pictures
> of penises is fooling himself. Wikipedia is
> absolutely censored from
> images its editors find disgusting. Most of its
> editors find sexual
> images just fine, and a large percentage view their
> suppression as
> harmful, "sex-negative", based on obsolete religious
> practice,
> whatever, so they're allowed. Look at David Goodman's
> message earlier
> for a good example of this. Sexual images aren't
> allowed because
> Wikipedia isn't censored, they're allowed because the
> predominant view
> of sex among Wikipedians is that it's a recreation like any
> other.
>
> If you think Wikipedia's imagery is not censored, please
> explain why
> [[Goatse.cx]] does not have an image of its subject
> matter. Such an
> image would clearly fall under our fair use criteria,
> wouldn't it?
> It's definitely essential for understanding of the
> material. But how
> long do you think the image would last if someone added
> it? I'd be
> surprised if no one tried to add it before, in fact.
> I'd also be
> surprised if anyone could even upload the image without
> having it
> speedy deleted as vandalism and getting a warning that
> they'd be
> blocked if they did it again.
> [[Nick Berg]] is primarily known because of the beheading
> video
> released about him, but his article chooses for some reason
> to depict
> a still from the video where he's still alive, rather than
> depicting
> the act of beheading itself. I would argue that the
> beheading part of
> the video is very educational. Most people's ideas of
> what beheading
> is like come from the movies, and are terribly
> inaccurate. Do you
> think anyone would object if I added a picture of the knife
> passing
> through his neck up at the top? Somehow I think so.
>
> Can anyone name me even *one* article where a gruesomely
> gory
> photograph is prominently displayed, in fact? There
> have been edit
> wars even on more moderately disgusting articles, like
> [[Human
> feces]], with no clear "Wikipedia is not censored!"
> resolution. Why?
> Because people don't like looking at images that are
> disgusting. Real
> surprise, huh? But Wikipedia isn't censored, right?
I think this email really shows a misunderstanding of "Wikipedia is not censored" is about; so I am starting a new thread to discuss the issue.
Censorship is deciding to withhold information for the purpose of keeping people (in some cases particular groups of people like children or non-members) uninformed. It is not simply choosing the least offensive image of human feces to use from equally informative options. This is something I said on-wiki years ago during a particular clash between "Wikipedia is not censored" and a group of people being offended:
"I never take an action for the purpose of causing offense. However I am certain people can be offended for a number of reasons by things I have done or said. I find this to be unfortunate but unavoidable. As far as Wikipedia goes it, there are a number of policies and guidelines here which help us navigate different cultural norms. I do my best to rely on these as well as precedent here over my own gut instinct of what I find personally acceptable. When WP norms lead to people being offended; I do think we should try to mitigate this as much as this is possible without compromising the core principle of providing *free encyclopedic content*. In this case little can done unless another freely licensed image is found. I would very much prefer to see these garments on a dress form or mannequin rather than live models. Not because the models offend me personally, but because I think live models make the photo more offensive to Mormons without adding
anything encyclopedic over the same picture on a dress form."
The key concept behind "Wikipedia is not censored" is that Wikipedia provides free encyclopedic content. So long as that underlying goal of providing encyclopedic information is met then we are not censoring. When we decide that certain information should simply not be available to people we are censoring. When we decide that a particular image does not inform people on the subject any better than another, or that the subject is not notable, then we are not censoring. Merely removing an image or not having it in the first place is not necessarily proof that Wikipedia is censored.
That said I am certain that there are articles on Wikipedia that are censored, just as there are biased articles and false articles. Wikipedia has never been perfect in the application of it's ideals.
I think the scope of what exactly is encyclopedic is a worthwhile discussion (on Wikipedia at least). What makes a sexuality concept notable?
I don't think advocating that censorship should be promoted is a practical approach however much it might stir people up. I don't think repeatedly mailing this list with a the latest image that someone believes is unacceptable is going to produce results. In fact the next thread that PM starts about a particular image that is *an example of a problem* rather than a thread about a proposal to address a problem is going to put him on my personal ignore list. Because I am finding the unproductive sensationalist approach very annoying. List traffic is not predictive of results. It might even be inversely related, after a certain level.
Birgitte SB
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 2:17 PM
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored
> (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and
> freely licensed sexual imagery
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:46 PM
> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM,
> > Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That said I am certain that there are articles
> on
> > Wikipedia that are censored, just as there are biased
> > articles and false articles. Wikipedia has never
> been
> > perfect in the application of it's ideals.
> >
> > Does that imply that you believe [[Goatse.cx]] should
> in
> > fact have an
> > above-the-fold illustration of its subject matter, or
> > not? If not,
> > how is that any different from [[Penis]]? And if so
> .
> > . . well, I
> > think you're in the minority here.
>
>
> In all honesty, I don't really know. I generally find
> the argument over non-free content to be not worth having,
> because it takes the long-range mission out of the picture.
> I am frankly, apathetic about whether Wikipedia even has an
> *article* on goatse.cx and other internet memes. I wouldn't
> create the article or add to it. But I wouldn't argue to
> remove the image if we had either.
>
> I would much rather formulate guidelines over the articles
> the are more inherently meaningful to more people.
> Like STD's or even [[Kama Sutra]]. Then evaluate
> [[Goatse.cx]] by those guidelines and see where it
> falls. I think focusing on what is meaningful rather
> than sensational will leads to better results.
>
> Birgitte SB
To be clear here. I don't want to look at goatse. However I came to the conclusion back in 2006 that Birgitte SB's gut reaction as to what is acceptable is an invalid criteria to use for what is included on Wikipedia. And while there is strong consensus as to what is acceptable for Wikipedia to include in the face of religious or political feelings. The situation on sexual sensitivities is less solidified. Until it is solidified I don't know what criteria should be used to make a decision on goatse. I do know that I don't want the criteria to evaluate articles covering important information to be based on feelings about goatse.
Birgitte SB
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:49 PM
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM,
> Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested
> creating mirror under a different domain name for schools.
> I replied to that saying how I thought resources were best
> spent. Then you replied to me.
> >
> > If you weren't replying to me to disagree with me, I
> have no idea what you intended. But I thought disagreement
> with me was a pretty safe assumption from the tone of your
> message.
>
> The beginning of my post was directed toward the general
> thread, and
> wasn't replying to anyone. I don't normally top-post
> on mailing
> lists. The part after the quote was replying to your
> specific point,
> and was supportive ("It would definitely be a good start .
> . ..").
I didn't see that there was anything besides the top-posted part. I am sorry for being careless about it and then making it a big deal :P
Birgitte SB
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:26 PM
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM,
> Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Your really didn't address my question. Why do you
> think WMF resources are best used to create and support a
> mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than
> making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any*
> of different of audiences in the world that find various
> different things unacceptable?
>
> I don't, and I'm not sure why you think I do. I
> explicitly stated
> that I favored a categorization system whereby users can
> filter out
> whatever content they personally find objectionable, and
> display
> whatever they don't. I also never said WMF resources
> should be spent
> on anything, and I definitely don't support creating entire
> mirrors
> just for the sake of image content when you could just hide
> or display
> the images inline. So I'm not sure what you mean at
> all.
Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested creating mirror under a different domain name for schools. I replied to that saying how I thought resources were best spent. Then you replied to me.
If you weren't replying to me to disagree with me, I have no idea what you intended. But I thought disagreement with me was a pretty safe assumption from the tone of your message.
Birgitte SB
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things unacceptable?
I don't, and I'm not sure why you think I do. I explicitly stated
that I favored a categorization system whereby users can filter out
whatever content they personally find objectionable, and display
whatever they don't. I also never said WMF resources should be spent
on anything, and I definitely don't support creating entire mirrors
just for the sake of image content when you could just hide or display
the images inline. So I'm not sure what you mean at all.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>>
>> The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how
>> to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply
>> _difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find
>> objectionable.
>>
>>
>>
...
>> Generally sexual imagery is the prime target since it's the biggest
>> hot-button "save the children" issue for most people -- many parents
>> wouldn't be happy to have their kid read "list of sexual positions" but
>> would rather they read the text than see the pictures, even if they're
>> drawings.
>>
>>
>> Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this
>> (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for
>> requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently
>> misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct
>> resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which
>> multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely
>> to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.
>>
>>
Do you have no shame?
Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?
We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?
A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to
wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned
was because he couldn't speak the queens english
properly. Really!
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things unacceptable?
Birgitte SB
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:59 PM
> Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't
> censored because it allows pictures
> of penises is fooling himself. Wikipedia is
> absolutely censored from
> images its editors find disgusting.
>
> <snip sexuality rant>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I think our efforts would be better focused making all
> of our content better suited for re-usability by different
> tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which
> tastes need to be targeted. Rather than creating a mirror
> ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing
> stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of
> the content.
>
> It would definitely be a good start to create a hierarchy
> of
> categories for the use of private parties who would like to
> censor
> their own Internet access, or that of those they have
> responsibility
> for. The way to go would be neutral designations
> like
> "Category:Pictures containing genitals", "Category:Pictures
> containing
> breasts", "Category:Depictions of Muhammad", and so
> on. This strictly
> adds value to the project.
>
> Then we would pick a set of categories to be blocked by
> default.
> Blocked images wouldn't be hidden entirely, just replaced
> with a link
> explaining why they were blocked. Clicking the link
> would cause them
> to display in place, and inline options would be provided
> to show all
> images in that category in the future (using preferences
> for users,
> otherwise cookies). Users could block any categories
> of images they
> liked from their profile.
>
> To begin with, we could preserve the status quo by
> disabling only very
> gory or otherwise really disgusting images by
> default. More
> reasonably, we could follow every other major website in
> the developed
> world, and by default disable display of any image
> containing male or
> female genitalia, or sex acts. Users who wanted the
> images could,
> again, get them with a single click, so there is no loss
> of
> information -- which is, after all, what we exist to
> provide.
> Wikipedia does not aim to push ideologies of sexual
> liberation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:04 PM
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM,
> David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2009/5/14 Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com>:
> >
> >> I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my
> strong agreement.
> >> Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the
> many users who don't
> >> share the outlook of our
> more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
> >> community is long overdue.
> >
> >
> > Schools Wikipedia, or similar distributions.
> >
> > What you're talking about with "reach out" is limiting
> the contents of
> > the live working site.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> Which have shown time and again that forks/fractures/split
> offs/new
> versions of Wikipedia don't work. They may find usage in a
> small
> niche, but they'll never be a huge deal.
>
> OTOH, the WMF saying "Hey parents/teachers/etc, we've got a
> version
> with all the nudity removed so you can show your
> kids/students/etc"
> would be massively popular.
>
If there is a massive market for this, then why hasn't such a mirror already been created?
I am serious here. Is there something that acting as a stumbling block to a third-party creating a SafeForKidsPedia mirror? Our content is supposed to be easily reused by groups with different target audiences than Wikipedia, so why isn't it happening? What can we do to make the content more easily re-usable for different purposes?
I think our efforts would be better focused making all of our content better suited for re-usability by different tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which tastes need to be targeted. Rather than creating a mirror ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of the content.
Birgitte SB
Dear Sirs,
The day before yesterday
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3…),
while discussing a private case, whose full details are confidential,
I described a strictly hypothetical case as follows:
Suppose a tetraplegic girl learns how to use a computer and finds out
about Wikipedia. After registering as a user she does all sort of
trampling. Would there be any administrator willing to block her from
editing Wikipedia?
Three administrators, one of them a bureaucrat and member of
arbitration committee have answered YES.
The administrator bureaucrat later quoted
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy>Wikimedia:Non
discrimination policy, explaining that that policy did NOT allow them
to treat editors differently, based on their [...] medical
condition.
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct_Policy>Wikimedia:Code
of Conduct Policy was also quoted.
I wonder if you would care to comment on all of the above.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado