[WikiEN-l] The Kils-Viking thing

[Toby Bartels]

Julie Kemp wrote in part:

>Some of those
>articles really could be considered inappropriate for non-adults - and I
>think that may be something we should consider, an advisory or
>something?

>First, we should realize that the wikipedia is a site that might be seen
>as many (reading the main page) as an educational site.  I don't know if
>child safety filters are going to catch it.  I also think there are
>articles on the site that are certainly more education than necessary
>for kids (Prince Albert Piercing and Fisting come to mind) - and I think
>that we should do the socially responsible thing and post that
>somewhere.  We certainly don't want an attack by the moral minority, and
>as yucky as I find some of those articles, I don't think they should be
>removed unless the project is severely redefined.

How about this (for [[Main Page]], after == Selected Articles ==):

:'''Warning''': Wikipedia contains material that some may consider offensive,
:such as information about vulgar slang, human sexuality, and other topics.
:This material will be kept to appropriate articles, of course,
:but be aware that it is here, and surf according to your own sensibilities.

I would oppose *any* removal of information on the basis of offensiveness,
but there's nothing wrong with a reasonable warning when offence is likely.

>On Kils specifically, I think his actions show that, although his
>intentions may have been honorable, he clearly does not quite "get" the
>spirit and the intent of the wikipedia.  Moreover, he used his sysop
>powers in a way that we all (I think) find unacceptable.

I'm not sure that this is so clear-cut.
His removal of the traces of [[User:Viking]] was premature,
since people are still talking about the case,
but we may yet delete it to save the Vikings from future embarassment.
After all, once an issue has been resolved, we don't need to harp on it.
Now, claiming that sysop status gives on special authority over content
is indeed an egregious violation, but did Uwe Kils actually do this?
It may just be that an aggressive Viking went too far.
(Kils did even make reference to "warning" the Vikings for misbehaviour.)
It's not clear to me.

>And he has not
>guaranteed that that behavior would stop.  So I would say that he should
>go back to being a user.  It removes the temptation for misuse, however
>well-intentioned, and gives him the power to say to others that he has
>no way of changing content except in a wiki way.

Well, he has agreed to be just a user, so we may not need to discuss it.


-- Toby