[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail.com
Thu May 14 20:44:52 UTC 2009

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
>> to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter
>> saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should
>> have told her to log in and check 'no sexual imagery' in her profile"!
> <snip>
> I would suggest that a "child-safe" version of Wikipedia be cloaked
> with its own domain syntax in a way similar to secure.wikimedia.org.
> That would allow schools and parents to block the main site while
> providing access to an alternative that they might find more
> acceptable.
> Since domain level filtering is already commonly employed by many
> software packages I don't think that would be an unreasonable thing to
> ask.  Choosing what filtered views of Wikipedia to provide at a domain
> level would require some discussion of course as well as some form of
> social agreement about what content belongs behind the filter.  Not
> easy issues at all, but making a good faith effort to address them
> would be huge in my mind.
> -Robert Rohde

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.

-Sage (User:Ragesoss)

More information about the foundation-l mailing list