On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
[...] but I'm even less keen on parents telling their children they can't use Wikipedia [...]
It's not the first time I see this meme expressed.
Is there a reliable source somewhere that shows that (a) this represents a significant number of parents over several cultural groups, and that (b) there is serious indication that if (a) is true those same parents are going to change their stance given the proposed implementation of the image filter?
Because, unless we got some serious statistical backing for those assertions, they are just smoke blowing our of asses to the sound of "but think of the children!"
Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
On 07/09/2011 9:14 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
Perhaps, the problem being that one parent's PG is another's inoffensive learning material. I can readily see people who wouldn't want their children anywhere near [[Big Bang]], or [[Evolution]]. Those are probably the mostly the same people who would fear them stumbling on [[Penis]] without an image filter. Parents who want to substitute pretending the world doesn't exist for doing actual, you know, *parental guidance* are doing their children a disservice.
Reality is PG.
-- Coren / Marc
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
.. Reality is PG.
;-)
By rating, I mean external standardised classification systems. What individual parents do with those ratings is a different matter.
Does English Wikipedia have content which an external regulator would classify as PG, or M?
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
.. Reality is PG.
;-)
By rating, I mean external standardised classification systems. What individual parents do with those ratings is a different matter.
Does English Wikipedia have content which an external regulator would classify as PG, or M?
-- John Vandenberg
You beg the question. Of course it does. Who wants their 12 year old girl reading about anal sex? But where is the parent when a boy suggests anal sex so she can continue to be a virgin?
Fred
John Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
[...] but I'm even less keen on parents telling their children they can't use Wikipedia [...]
It's not the first time I see this meme expressed.
Is there a reliable source somewhere that shows that (a) this represents a significant number of parents over several cultural groups, and that (b) there is serious indication that if (a) is true those same parents are going to change their stance given the proposed implementation of the image filter?
Because, unless we got some serious statistical backing for those assertions, they are just smoke blowing our of asses to the sound of "but think of the children!"
Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
[[WP:ANI]] is hardly an example to our children, is it?
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Phil Nash phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
... [[WP:ANI]] is hardly an example to our children, is it?
ANI isn't a content page.
John Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Phil Nash phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
... [[WP:ANI]] is hardly an example to our children, is it?
ANI isn't a content page.
As I understand it, all of Wikipedia is available to all readers. It follows that the same standard should prevail throughout, however good, or poor. And that's without exposing the lamentable ArbCom pages to the children of the world. We can, and should, be giving a better example to our future committed contributors. So it's no wonder new editors are being deterred, when existing editors are being treated with such disdain. Unless and until we can follow Jimbo's proclaimed model of tolerance and forgiveness, silence is the best model to follow.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
[...] but I'm even less keen on parents telling their children they can't use Wikipedia [...]
It's not the first time I see this meme expressed.
Is there a reliable source somewhere that shows that (a) this represents a significant number of parents over several cultural groups, and that (b) there is serious indication that if (a) is true those same parents are going to change their stance given the proposed implementation of the image filter?
Because, unless we got some serious statistical backing for those assertions, they are just smoke blowing our of asses to the sound of "but think of the children!"
Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
-- John Vandenberg
We serve a global and universal audience. Of course there are articles that many parents would not want their children viewing. There is not much we can do about that. What we can do is ensure that they do not contain gratuitous, unneeded, offensive material.
I remember once at the local college library, Adams State, in Alamosa, that they had Girl on a Swing in the children's collection.
The plot, to spoil it, is that a young woman, in order to marry someone who doesn't want children, kills her child. Pretty much a modern Grimm's Fairy Tale. Yet, I'm not sure it didn't belong in the young adult's section of a childrens collection.
Children have a right to know about the world they live in, to know about child abuse, pedophiles, anal sex, and mass murder by leaders millions of people worship.
Fred
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I remember once at the local college library, Adams State, in Alamosa, that they had Girl on a Swing in the children's collection.
At my secondary school library (er, I think that's 'high school' for the US equivalent) we were given a tour of the library in the first year.
We were given some time to look around and a fellow pupil told me that the teacher had a book that showed photos of violent deaths. I "went mad" as that fellow pupil later described it: I immediately dashed over to see this book the teacher was holding. I had a very morbid curiosity about such things. I learned that this book was kept in a special locked room and only brought out on request (not that the request was always granted). I'm surprised now that I didn't take more interest in the locked room and make it a mission to see all the books kept in there.
Which brings me to the thought that I'm sure that if we tag images deemed to be offensive there'll be a constituency of kids that immediately gravitate towards seeing as many of those images as possible, either because we've made it easier to do so or because someone outside of Wikipedia writes a list hosted off-site for all to see.
I'm not saying that's a reason to not have a filter. Just that I see it having the above effect.
Bod
On 7 September 2011 21:14, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
[...] but I'm even less keen on parents telling their children they can't use Wikipedia [...]
It's not the first time I see this meme expressed.
Is there a reliable source somewhere that shows that (a) this represents a significant number of parents over several cultural groups, and that (b) there is serious indication that if (a) is true those same parents are going to change their stance given the proposed implementation of the image filter?
Because, unless we got some serious statistical backing for those assertions, they are just smoke blowing our of asses to the sound of "but think of the children!"
Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video games, and other media. There are literally tens of thousands of pages on the English Wikipedia that would fall afoul of rating schemes of multiple countries, although they would vary significantly from country to country.
I recall some time ago, I bumped into an article that had a video of the bodies of dead (facially recognizable) soldiers being looted. I'm pretty sure that one would have crossed the PG (or equivalent) in many countries. Sexually explicit pages cross the threshold in many countries as well, obviously, and there are some that would be rated as "Adults only" in many countries too.
But we already know that, so I wonder why you ask this?
Risker/Anne
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video games, and other media.
Which rating systems would apply to our content?
i.e. does the Australian regulatory body have jurisdiction over Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board
Yes it does, if the Australian Communications and Media Authority refers the websites to it.
repeat and rinse for each country.
There are literally tens of thousands of pages on the English Wikipedia that would fall afoul of rating schemes of multiple countries, although they would vary significantly from country to country. .. But we already know that, so I wonder why you ask this?
Sure there are a lot of possible problems, but I am wondering if we have any concrete examples for us to consider. It may inform debate to talk about real content pages on a Wikipedia project which should be rated, either by law or on a voluntary/best practice basis.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:15:00PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video games, and other media.
Sure there are a lot of possible problems, but I am wondering if we have any concrete examples for us to consider. It may inform debate to talk about real content pages on a Wikipedia project which should be rated, either by law or on a voluntary/best practice basis.
Pages on wikipedia should not be rated. Ratings are per definition a prejudicial labelling scheme, they are given as an example of such a scheme by ALA. ALA classifies such rating schemes as "Censorship tools".
The canadian and international library associations have similar definitions.
Censorship and the tools thereto are evil. Our objective is to promote information that is free as in freedom of speech. Wikipedia is a constructive and friendly way to achieve this goal.
I would prefer to attain my goals in constructive and friendly ways (obviously). I would prefer not to work in unfriendly ways, or outright destructive ways.
If you want to promote a rating scheme, please do so elsewhere.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Hi Kim,
I think you might be more interested in looking at the same question from another perspective.
Are there any encyclopedia which have been classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would decide that the content is appropriate for all ages.
John Vandenberg wrote:
I think you might be more interested in looking at the same question from another perspective.
Are there any encyclopedia which have been classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would decide that the content is appropriate for all ages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_PRC
Is this a trick question?
MZMcBride
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
I think you might be more interested in looking at the same question from another perspective.
Are there any encyclopedia which have been classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would decide that the content is appropriate for all ages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_PRC
Is this a trick question?
That is Wikipedia being banned. Are there other, real paper, published encyclopedia that have been banned or classified? I expect the answer to be yes, and I hope it is only repressive regimes which have done this.
If other encyclopedia have been banned, are we in good company?
If we are the only encyclopedia to have been banned, perhaps our content is inappropriately explicit, and we could replace this wikipedia image filter with some editorial self-control.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any encyclopedia which have been classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would decide that the content is appropriate for all ages.
Britannica never had authors putting pictures of their own genitals throughout each volume "because NOTCENSORED".
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any encyclopedia which have been classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would decide that the content is appropriate for all ages.
Britannica never had authors putting pictures of their own genitals throughout each volume "because NOTCENSORED".
Neither has Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored, but it does still select the pictures it puts on pages based on relevance and quality. There are few pages where pictures of 'my genitals' are applicable, and unless they are very good photographers, there are better alternatives also on those pages.
If we didn't all know that Mike is probably following this thread, I think we would have reached Godwin's law a little while back.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any encyclopedia which have been classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would decide that the content is appropriate for all ages.
, >
Britannica never had authors putting pictures of their own genitals throughout each volume "because NOTCENSORED".
Britannica didn't only have problems witn NOTCENSORED, they also had *humongous* problems with NPOV.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:24:27PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
Hi Kim,
I think you might be more interested in looking at the same question from another perspective.
Oh, right, sorry. I knew it was a bad idea to post at 5:00 AM. ^^;;
If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would decide that the content is appropriate for all ages.
That's an interesting perspective, and one which we haven't fully explored yet. :-)
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video games, and other media.
Which rating systems would apply to our content?
i.e. does the Australian regulatory body have jurisdiction over Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board
Yes it does, if the Australian Communications and Media Authority refers the websites to it.
repeat and rinse for each country.
Uh uh, there is no governor general of the United States with dictatorial power. We have an enforceable constitution in which guarantees freedom of speech.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video games, and other media.
Which rating systems would apply to our content?
i.e. does the Australian regulatory body have jurisdiction over Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board
Yes it does, if the Australian Communications and Media Authority refers the websites to it.
repeat and rinse for each country.
Uh uh, there is no governor general of the United States with dictatorial power. We have an enforceable constitution in which guarantees freedom of speech.
Fred
Up to a point. There are so many exceptions to that principle that it's somewhat pointless to mention it in the context of a private website.
John Vandenberg wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video games, and other media.
Which rating systems would apply to our content?
i.e. does the Australian regulatory body have jurisdiction over Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board
Yes it does, if the Australian Communications and Media Authority refers the websites to it.
repeat and rinse for each country.
Rubbish, and the article you cite is very poorly-written anyway. Australia is not China and does not, and cannot, restrict access to websites that are global in nature. And if it even tried to do so, I've met a few Aussies in my time who understand the Internet and would easily subvert any regulation whatsoever. Not many, it has to be said, but enough to make such a move useless.
There are literally tens of thousands of pages on the English Wikipedia that would fall afoul of rating schemes of multiple countries, although they would vary significantly from country to country. .. But we already know that, so I wonder why you ask this?
Sure there are a lot of possible problems, but I am wondering if we have any concrete examples for us to consider. It may inform debate to talk about real content pages on a Wikipedia project which should be rated, either by law or on a voluntary/best practice basis.
Such debate would be useless. "one man's meat", etc, and I don't see how Wikipedia could possibly subscribe to a "lowest-common denominator" type of policy, unless it wants to become an encyclopedia fit only for children, and beyond that, an encyclopedia fit only for what parents, or worse, politicians, think appropriate. I didn't fight in two World Wars- I admit that- but my parents and grandparents did- that we could have free access to information, which means all information. And any attempt at grading, rating, or whatever, is bound to be a breach of so many WP policies that if you don't know what they are, you shouldn't be an Arbitrator, an Administrator, or even an editor.
Kill this idea now.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Phil Nash phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote: .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board
Rubbish, and the article you cite is very poorly-written anyway.
I provided the link to Wikipedia so people unfamiliar with Australia have somewhere to start.
Australia is not China and does not, and cannot, restrict access to websites that are global in nature.
http://www.efa.org.au/category/censorship/mandatory-isp-filtering/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15/australian_censorship_measures/
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:00:27PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
http://www.efa.org.au/category/censorship/mandatory-isp-filtering/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15/australian_censorship_measures/
I know, right? That's why it's politically so damned inconvenient for the board to move for a filter now. It plays right into the hands of these thoroughly nasty people.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
Good candidates that I have had a hand in improving are: # [[Gebelein predynastic mummies]] - surely gruesome close-ups of naked dead bodies are PG? # [[Warren Cup]] - explicit depiction of under-age homosexual anal sex in the lead. # [[Ain Sakhri lovers]] - depiction of penetrative heterosexual intercourse in the lead.
The discussion of how to make Wikipedia "child-friendly" has a long history with no firm conclusion. Some would like to effectively censor massive areas of history and culture, whilst others will take any potential restriction as a direct challenge to the open movement.
Cheers, Fae
Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what is supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but actually looks more like a piece of stale bread? Wow.
2011/9/13 Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk
Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
Good candidates that I have had a hand in improving are: # [[Gebelein predynastic mummies]] - surely gruesome close-ups of naked dead bodies are PG? # [[Warren Cup]] - explicit depiction of under-age homosexual anal sex in the lead. # [[Ain Sakhri lovers]] - depiction of penetrative heterosexual intercourse in the lead.
The discussion of how to make Wikipedia "child-friendly" has a long history with no firm conclusion. Some would like to effectively censor massive areas of history and culture, whilst others will take any potential restriction as a direct challenge to the open movement.
Cheers, Fae
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 13 September 2011 18:23, M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what is supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but actually looks more like a piece of stale bread? Wow.
That's rather the point of putting up these examples for illustration and as a test for any proposal. Where do you draw the line?
The mummy in question is a real person, regardless of age, and detailed photographs of their dead body are problematic for a number of reasons, not just their nudity, and we changed the Wikimedia article title with the encouragement of the museum in order to explain how they now comply with the UK's human tissue act. The Warren Cup is one of the most famous erotic objects from the Roman period and the two images of anal intercourse (with who in modern times would be considered a boy) is fully explicit and for this reason used to be locked away in a cupboard in the British Museum as it was considered far too graphic for public consumption (it has recently been displayed at a lower hight making it easier for those in wheelchairs to enjoy and for children to ask about). The "piece of stale bread" has never been interpreted as anything else but an artistic depiction of sexual intercourse, should one introduce "PG" certificate style protection for children (or schools), it would doubtless include this object too.
Cheers, Fae
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 13 September 2011 18:23, M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what is supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but actually looks more like a piece of stale bread? Wow.
That's rather the point of putting up these examples for illustration and as a test for any proposal. Where do you draw the line?
Thanks Fae. So far there are very few documented instances of external regulators rating/censoring Wikipedia content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
I think it is useful to put other what-ifs on the table to discuss. Most of the time we'll have good reasons to disagree with an external regulators desire to hide an image. However there may be instances where we can fix the problem by removing gratuitous images from articles, and leave them in a Commons category.
If it turns out to be a very limited problem, we should not build a complex system that ends up over-engineered and not supported by the community. A few gadgets to hide individual images might suffice.
-- John Vandenberg
2011/9/13 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 13 September 2011 18:23, M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what
is
supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but actually looks more like a piece of stale bread? Wow.
That's rather the point of putting up these examples for illustration and as a test for any proposal. Where do you draw the line?
Thanks Fae. So far there are very few documented instances of external regulators rating/censoring Wikipedia content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
I think it is useful to put other what-ifs on the table to discuss. Most of the time we'll have good reasons to disagree with an external regulators desire to hide an image. However there may be instances where we can fix the problem by removing gratuitous images from articles, and leave them in a Commons category.
Which images are "gratuitous"? Doesn't this vary based on your POV (and degree of prudishness)? I wouldn't consider any of the images in any of the articles Fae mentioned to be gratuitous, but some people certainly might. I would hope that we would never resort to removing such images, which certainly serve an educational purpose and definitely belong in those articles, just because someone feels that they're "inappropriate". An article about "Penis" should include an image of its subject, just like the article "Banana" includes pictures of bananas; what I consider gratuitous is if somebody tries to include pictures of penises in the article "Photograph" as examples of photographs "because WP:NOTCENSORED" (for example). As long as it illustrates the article, we shouldn't remove it just because some person somewhere (or even a lot of people in a lot of places) finds it objectionable. So [[pregnancy]] should keep the image of the pregnant woman; (if someone tries to add an image of a penis saying "Penises tend to be involved in causing pregnancy", that would be "gratuitous" I think) nudity can be educational and illustrative without being pornographic. All of the articles Fae mentioned should keep their images intact, given that the subjects of those articles are directly depicted in the images.
2011/9/13 M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what is supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but actually looks more like a piece of stale bread? Wow.
+1 I really hope that Wikimedia will never censor this kind of stuff...
Yann
2011/9/13 Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk
Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
Good candidates that I have had a hand in improving are: # [[Gebelein predynastic mummies]] - surely gruesome close-ups of naked dead bodies are PG? # [[Warren Cup]] - explicit depiction of under-age homosexual anal sex in the lead. # [[Ain Sakhri lovers]] - depiction of penetrative heterosexual intercourse in the lead.
The discussion of how to make Wikipedia "child-friendly" has a long history with no firm conclusion. Some would like to effectively censor massive areas of history and culture, whilst others will take any potential restriction as a direct challenge to the open movement.
Cheers, Fae
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org