[WikiEN-l] FW: Advisories and saying goodbye -- long

[Julie Kemp]

Hello all -- 

I sent this out a week ago, but have been having e-mail problems, so
don't know if it was received; nevertheless, I am still of the same
mind.  Moreover, having paid attention to the discussion on the subject
of filters, etc., I cannot say that anything has happened except to
convince me that anyone really gives a shit about the initial question.

The initial question/suggestion was to place a visible advisory that the
wikipedia contains information that some people might find
objectionable.  From there, there were many straw men raised about the
POV-ness of "objectionable".  Me, I agree that lots of stuff might be
objectionable (-- and so what?), but that there are certain (mostly)
sexually explicit articles that your average surfer might not expect to
find, and that even a fairly conscientious parent (or child, in Jimmy's
case) might miss when glancing over the site for age-appropriateness (or
even some kind of family-imposed moral or religious code -- unless KQ,
Erik, et al. mean to suggest that parents should not be allowed any say
in when they want their children intentionally exposed to certain
information -- religious, political, sexual, whatever, by religious,
atheist, or just plain
struggling-through-something-far-too-easy-to-screw-up-and-don't-need-inp
ut-from-strangers parents, that is).

The entire conversation has been not-very-subtly changed to be one over
filters and wikipedia-imposed censorship.  It's one that I consider to
be total bullshit, by the way -- well-calculated deviation that blurs
any dealing with any type of deeper social responsibility.  Some of you
have managed to prove that Thatcherism is not dead (you know, the nice
lady who said "there is no such thing as 'society'"?).  Nor is the
ridiculous world of Ayn Rand, where one can pretend that one's actions
have no wider consequences than those other people allow them to have.
How utterly depressing that so many people who consider it important to
write very good articles that raise awareness of the global
interconnections of scientific, political, and religious issues (among
others) refuse to accept that their own actions (or refusal to act)
might also have widespread effects.  How very sad that the very people
who consistently argue for NPOV try to use it as some kind of shield of
non-censorship, thus forcing their own POV on others.  Please don't say
you aren't -- there have been all too many "religion and prudery damage
kids, and they'd learn this stuff anyway, so it might as well be right"
arguments to deny it.  What is more NPOV than to say clearly on the main
page that the wikipedia respects the fact that people operate under many
different value systems, and that there may be information on the site
that could be objectionable?

Oh -- and BTW, if we stuck to "wikipedia is not a dictionary", most of
the articles that make a lot of wikipedians squeamish would be deleted
anyway -- my guess is that no one wants to be seen as less than
open-minded.  Felching is certainly a dictionary-type definition.

And also -- DW is dangerous in any form.  I'm almost positive he was
also Triton, and Jacques Delson.  The time he takes from other people's
efforts is hardly worth any contributions.  HJ also made some very good
contributions.

Anyway, as I say below, I'll check the list until my requests below are
answered.  Thanks and peace.

JHK


-----Original Message-----
From: Julie Kemp [mailto:juleskemp at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 12:50 PM
To: 'Jimmy Wales'
Subject: Advisories and saying goodbye



Hi Jimmy -- 

You know, I've been watching the discussion on the disclaimer on the
list and on the associated talk page, and I have to say, it really has
made up my mind on a lot of things.  Oddly enough, it also ties back
into the kind of problems I've had with Helga, Triton, et al.  

I really believe that expertise is important.  I really believe that
NPOV doesn't mean giving equal weight to all points of view, if some of
those points of view are not well grounded in fact or accepted theory.
I really believe that NPOV is vital to the Wikipedia.  I really believe
that censorship is antithetical to the project.  BUT -- that doesn't
mean I don't think that we should use those principles to abdicate our
responsibilities to a larger society.  It's all good is a nice phrase,
but it isn't exactly true.  Some things aren't good.  And sometimes
giving things that aren't good more 'airtime' than they deserve helps to
inure people and even, I think, encourages a tacit acceptance that this
is all part of society.  From there, I think it's entirely possible that
people drawn to antisocial behavior will find reinforcement for their
behavior.  The acceptance may not be true, but perceptions are often
more important for society than reality.  

Me?  I'm just a leftwing democrat ancient and medieval historian.  Maybe
it has something to do with having read all that stuff on the
individual's place in and responsibility to society -- that "man is a
being of the polis" stuff.  Maybe it's growing up in the "ask not what
your country can do for you ...", Great Society world.  Maybe it's
because I deal with young people daily, and have read and seen enough to
know in my gut that children are *supposed* to be protected by adults
(and not in the crazy Adam/Lir "de Mausian psychohistory" way) -- and
that even when kids seem to be able to deal with things, it doesn't mean
they really are.  There's lots of evidence to back that, despite what KQ
and others would like us to believe.

Anyway, after lots of thought, I cannot in good conscience continue to
contribute.  When it was something I could point to as being a
relatively scholarly pursuit, there was at least a reason.  However,
without some kind of visible advisory of the kind you suggest on the
site, I do not see it as something to which I can point to with pride.
The individual articles that are very good do not make up for the
"Jimbo's mom" aspect.  Sometimes there is such a thing as too much
information, I guess.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could also "erase" me from the
site.  If you must leave things in, perhaps you could change me to a set
of unrelated initials, or a number.  Basically, though, I would prefer
that my association with the project just go away. Also, if my name is
no longer there to defend, I won't be tempted back into the fray.
Please feel free to post any of this to the list, or to anyone
interested.  I'll stay on the list for a week or so, and will of course
be in touch by e-mail.  

Take care, Jimmy -- I've really enjoyed most of my time here, but I
can't stay somewhere I feel is spiritually and perhaps professionally
detrimental to me.  Thanks so much for the project, though -- 

Julie