[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Sat, 24/7/10, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> - That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version,
> and that seeing the uncensored version of Wikipedia requires
> registering an account and setting the preferences up
> accordingly.
> 
> > And this is where it all breaks down. Once you start
> to offer a
> > partially censored version as standard you are
> basically going to have
> > to fight an eternal war until you give up and reacht
> he bottom of the
> > slippery slope.

> Yes. Unless it is actually agreed by consensus of the
> project
> communities themselves, it will not fly. If it is imposed
> by the
> Foundation, the community will, as has been discussed, get
> up and
> *leave*. Saying "a fork will happen" is not a threat of
> forking, it's
> a statement of what it's *utterly obvious* will happen in
> the case of
> a top down imposition. I might be wrong in saying that, but
> I don't
> think I am.


I am not against making every effort to bring about community consensus. 

But note that people have not left YouTube in droves, people have not left Flickr in droves, just because unregistered IPs don't get to see YouTube's gynaecological examination videos, or Flickr's porn. People have not stopped using google just because they have to change a preference if they want to look for porn images. 

And Flickr still *has* its porn, and its porn is now better safeguarded than if it were unfiltered. There is no slippery slope that ends with all controversial material deleted.

We should learn from popular sites like YouTube and Flickr. We're the only site operating in this order of magnitude that does not have any system at all set up in this area.

Let's remember that, just as with YouTube, the amount of material affected is a *tiny* proportion of the overall content available. You could surf Wikipedia and Commons for months as an IP before you come onto a page that requires you to register and change your preferences to see its content.

Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language version of any project could make its own determination in this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex and kissing; Dutch and German, the full Monty with no censorship at all. Whatever.

You *could* have a self-censorship option for registered users and always leave IP access unfiltered by default, but if that means minors can evade whatever account settings their parents or teachers have set up by the simple expedient of logging out, this would rob the system of a good part of its effectiveness. So yes, I see the problem, but that is how it is, unless someone can think of a better solution. 

And as far as I and my family are concerned, I'd be happy to surf "all-in". It is a "set-up once and forget" thing, and then I have the same Wikipedia I've always had.

A.