Here is a good example of what can happen when we set free those children who "have gained the trust of their parents to use the internet within whatever limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor) believe is appropriate":
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200907/wisconsin-high-school-sex-...
So, if that's too long for you to read and consider the implications, there's always this Wikimedia image that has received nearly 2,000 page views this month:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cock_and_Ball_Torture.jpg
Or, there's this one that has captured the attention of over 2,000 visitors this month:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estim_penis.jpg
I have trouble understanding how these images help "that girl in Africa" emerge from the abject poverty that surrounds her, but I'll trust you guys (we're all adults here, right?) that you're helping to fulfill that mission with publication of images like these, with little to no concern whether there are minors consuming them.
Gregory Kohs
INTERNET SEX PANIC. That GQ article doesn't even have anything to do with Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what your point here is, other than that teenagers are both interested in and curious about sex, and will use the tools at their disposal to explore this curiosity, whether they be social media or reference material.
And the suggestion that removing certain content would make the project more likely to be used by certain demographics of people is not a persuasive one. It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar libraries if they could be sure that certain material had been removed from the building. But typically libraries do not cater to people who ask that offensive books be removed, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia is different. These are people who fundamentally do not understand what libraries (or Wikipedia) are for.
And here's a link for you too, since you were considerate enough to include one.
http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/1011029.html
FMF
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a good example of what can happen when we set free those children who "have gained the trust of their parents to use the internet within whatever limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor) believe is appropriate":
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200907/wisconsin-high-school-sex-...
So, if that's too long for you to read and consider the implications, there's always this Wikimedia image that has received nearly 2,000 page views this month:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cock_and_Ball_Torture.jpg
Or, there's this one that has captured the attention of over 2,000 visitors this month:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estim_penis.jpg
I have trouble understanding how these images help "that girl in Africa" emerge from the abject poverty that surrounds her, but I'll trust you guys (we're all adults here, right?) that you're helping to fulfill that mission with publication of images like these, with little to no concern whether there are minors consuming them.
Gregory Kohs _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar libraries if they could be sure that certain material had been removed from the building. But typically libraries do not cater to people who ask that offensive books be removed, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia is different.
I'm not sure what your library is like, but the situation at my library is much more controlled than the one at Wikipedia. Yes, there's offensive material in it, and some of the offensive material is in places where children have access, but it's nothing even remotely approaching what's found in Wikipedia - in terms of how graphic the material is, in terms of how easily accessible it is to minors, in terms of the chances of encountering it accidentally, and in terms of the use of children to decide whether or not to keep it.
Clearly, Wikipedia causes teenage pregnancy. Why is anyone disputing that point?
SAFE SEX = NO WIKIPEDIA
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar libraries if they could be sure that certain material had been removed
from
the building. But typically libraries do not cater to people who ask
that
offensive books be removed, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia is different.
I'm not sure what your library is like, but the situation at my library is much more controlled than the one at Wikipedia. Yes, there's offensive material in it, and some of the offensive material is in places where children have access, but it's nothing even remotely approaching what's found in Wikipedia - in terms of how graphic the material is, in terms of how easily accessible it is to minors, in terms of the chances of encountering it accidentally, and in terms of the use of children to decide whether or not to keep it.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/11/17 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar libraries if they could be sure that certain material had been removed from the building. But typically libraries do not cater to people who ask that offensive books be removed, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia is different.
I'm not sure what your library is like, but the situation at my library is much more controlled than the one at Wikipedia. Yes, there's offensive material in it, and some of the offensive material is in places where children have access, but it's nothing even remotely approaching what's found in Wikipedia - in terms of how graphic the material is, in terms of how easily accessible it is to minors, in terms of the chances of encountering it accidentally, and in terms of the use of children to decide whether or not to keep it.
You never flicked through the photography or modern art section. Sure my library didn't have any of Robert Mapplethorpe's work but it had some fairly explicit stuff. That said I think the winner in that sense was one of the art books my school held.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:28 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You never flicked through the photography or modern art section.
I highly doubt we have a "modern art section".
In any case, as Jimbo always likes to point out, Wikipedia is only the encyclopedia. The rest of the library is Wikia.
If anybody wants censored encyclopedia there is a very easy way how to obtain it:
1) Take a copy of Wikipedia's database. 2) Use it at your own Mediawiki server. 3) Censor whatever you want. 4) Never ever bother others with your hobbies.
This solution of your problem is completely legal and free of charge. Enjoy.
Jiri
One point that the apologists seem to be missing is that the Wikimedia Foundation assumes and expects that sometimes minors have administrator rights on the Wikimedia projects. This then gives them the responsibility of deciding what is suitable content or not for the project. Likewise, the Foundation seems to assume and expect that there will be some risk of the child interacting on very serious issues with grown adults whose agenda may indeed be to exploit the minor. But, the response is...
Go fork yourself a new wiki, if you don't like it.
And the Foundation powers that be wonder why critics sometimes skip to more "dramatic" forms of protest, without "going through the proper channels". Jimmy Wales can probably tell you about this very phenomenon when I didn't "go through proper channels" to advocate against his company hosting a "Spanking Art" Wikia site, complete with photos and drawings of young girls in pigtails being showcased in a highly exploitative and abusive setting. Wikia wanted more time to try to "work things out" with the creators of that environment, while I preferred that it be taken down in 48 hours, regardless of conversations with the creators.
Oh well, I guess I'll just go make myself my own wiki. I'm working on an article about "Consumer economy", if anyone is interested in helping out and earning $15:
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Talk:Consumer_economy
Greg
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org