[WikiEN-l] Just to throw this out there...

[Erik Moeller]

Jimmy-
> My essential point is that our refusal to have standards is not a
> valid tool in the fight against censorship.  Rather it plays directly
> into the hands of those who argue that censorship is necessary.

This is a very weak argument. Those who want censorship will argue that it  
is necessary with or without a Wikipedia article called "List of unusual  
sex practices". If they want a poster child for censorship, picking on an  
open encyclopedia project is not likely to work very well.

I have said that Wikipedia is important, and that it is true: It is  
important the moment it becomes censored entirely by someone, because of  
all the clearly useful and educational information that is there. But  
before this happens, Wikipedia is just one of millions of websites, very  
small parts of which contain small amounts of possibly offensive content  
within an encyclopedic framework.

Arguing that because of these small amounts of offensive information in an  
open encyclopedia, "we need filters NOW!" is not the kind of argument that  
works well in a filtering debate. You could pick many, many other sites  
and many, many other equivalent examples for that, from Blogspot to  
Livejournal, from Slashdot to Everything2, from Google ("SafeSearch"  
notwithstanding) to Yahoo. Let's take a look at a random news.yahoo.com  
story. In the comment section we find on the first page:

----
336892	 	Re: Jews killed Jesus. Jesus who?
336891	 	Re: Wilbur05488 dilemma,,,seeker
336890	 	Re: Jews killed Jesus.
336889	 	Re: Why Arabs want Israel.
336888	 	Re: US jews HAVE NO LOYALTY TO AMERICA!!
336887	 	Re: Cretins, jealous of Jewish achieveme
336886	 	Re: Jews killed Juses.
336885	 	Re: If Hillary were President..
336884	 	Re: US jews HAVE NO LOYALTY TO AMERICA!!
336883	 	Cretins sure sound like Arabs/Muslims
336882	 	Re: LET THE KILL EACH OTHER
336881	 	Look at this Sentence
336880	 	Re: Jews killed Juses.
336879	 	Re: LET THE KILL EACH OTHER
...
----

Our unusual sex practice articles pale in comparison to these crude and  
vulgar discussions. And you don't even want to know what is on  
groups.yahoo.com and the like. Yet even Yahoo! or Google are not used as  
examples in the filtering debate. That's not because they offer primitive  
"family filters", it's because you don't make the case for filtering by  
using subtle arguments. The people who are intelligent enough to  
understand them are probably against filtering in the first place.

Here are the likely scenarios. For simplicity's sake I'll leave out the  
implementation cost of filtering in each scenario, even though it is  
there:

1) We implement a working filter. Schools and libraries install blacklist  
filters regardless because of rotten.com et al. But we're not part of the  
filters.

        WE WIN:  pupils can access parts of Wikipedia
        WE LOSE: we have effectively endorsed the filtering of explicit
                 content, other interactive sites will be expected to do
                 the same or get blacklisted.

2) We implement a working filter. Schools and libraries install keyword  
filters for URLs and pages, and exempt Wikipedia from this filter:

        WE WIN: control over what gets filtered
        WE LOSE: see 1)

3) We implement a working filter. Schools and libraries install keyword  
filters for URLs and pages, with no exceptions on URLs.

        WE WIN: -
        WE LOSE: see 1)

4) We implement a filter that filters too much and is used repressively.  
Schools and libraries wholeheartedly endorse it.

        WE WIN: -
        WE LOSE: Wikipedia sets an example for hard control and is cited
        as such. Others are asked to follow our model. Legitimate content
        is hidden from minors.

5) We implement a filter that filters too little. Schools and libraries  
call for additional measures.

        WE WIN: -
        WE LOSE: -

6) We implement no filter at all. Schools and libraries install keyword  
filters for URLs and pages, with no exceptions on URLs.

        WE WIN: -
        WE LOSE: -

7) We implement no filter at all. Schools and libraries blacklist  
Wikipedia.org because of pussy pictures.

        WE WIN: opportunity to promote open access, highlight the dangers
                of filtering, publicity
        WE LOSE: access by minors

In all of the above scenarios, minors lose access to some pages. We have  
little to gain in that area. I personally doubt that we lose reputation  
because of a lack of filtering. Both scenario 6) and 7) are not  
particularly dangerous to us. Therefore I think that not implementing any  
kind of "family filter" is a reasonable choice.

Regards,

Erik