At 01:47 PM 6/16/2003, Jimbo wrote:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Jimbo, I'm puzzled. Where is it written that Wikipedia contains content that needs filtering?
Right here, by me: "Wikipedia contains content that would be widely regarded as thoroughly objectionable by reasonable people, and this is a problem for the project."
I hate to argue semantics (actually, no I don't, I love it, but you get my point), but that's not relevant. Saying that there is stuff that some people might find objectionable is not the same as saying there is stuff that needs filtering... oh, excuse me, "sorting". ;)
Also, I am not totally certain that I agree that there are things that "reasonable people" would consider "thoroughly objectionable" on Wikipedia.
Who, exactly, is it that should be choosing which content on our site is "objectionable"... and objectionable to whom?
End users should be able to choose the view of our content that is appropriate for their circumstances.
They are able to do so now. It's called "free will" and "choice". Anyone who doesn't want to look at an article on anal sex probably shouldn't click on a link to it. I wasn't aware that people ran into objectionable content accidently. Call me crazy, but I don't see how people are going to be blindsided by the felching article. No one is going to go there unless they either know what it is and want to read about it, or DON'T know what it is and want to know what it is... and they shortly WILL know when they read the article.
How are we irresponsible?
We currently provide parents and children absolutely no tools by which they might seek to provide age-appropriate views of our content.
It's not our responsibility. If it were, we might be viewed as irresponsible. But, just as we are not irresponsible for not providing food to the poor in Afghanistan (since it's not our job to do so) neither are we irresponsible here. People have free will. I have no sympathy for people who get offended by what they read here. If you don't like it, DON'T READ IT. As for children, if you are SO terribly concerned about what their fragile minds might encounter on the DANGEROUS and pornographic Wikipedia, how about you sit down with your child and supervise them? Hmmm? Obviously, "you" is used here rhertorically, not to refer to Jimbo.
I am of the opinion that Wikipedia does NOT contain content that needs filtering. Ideas are both MORE dangerous and LESS dangerous than most people realize. Of course, the proponents of filtering universally want to filter the less dangerous stuff and let the more dangerous stuff through. (i.e., sexuality is not dangerous, but ideas like freedom/rationality/logic ARE dangerous... at least to people who think sexuality IS dangerous....)
Believe me, I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint. But it *is* a viewpoint, a viewpoint which we should not let manifest itself in ramming our own ideas down other people's throats.
Let me get this straight... a lack of meta-data on content is ramming our ideas down other peoples' throats? So... since the Wikipedia has NEVER had that content, we've been ramming our ideas down peoples' throats for HOW long now? Wow, I'm surprised we haven't heard more complaints....
Consider this -- if I let all my personal preferences rule what goes into Wikipedia, it would be far different from what it is now. I couldn't be trusted to write articles on religion, for example, because if it was "up to me" in the relevant sense, they would all end up hostile to religion generally.
Well, in my personal opinion, that wouldn't be too terrible... I wouldn't mind seeing some hostile articles on religion... done NPOV of course. ;)
But we have a higher principle than that, the NPOV principle, and we need to apply it carefully and conscientiously *even at the level of policy*. Which means: giving our editors the means to introduce NPOV metadata, *even if we don't approve* of what some readers might do with it.
I'm sorry Jimbo, I just don't agree. I don't see why we need to bend over backwards (and regardless of how "simple" such a plan could possibly be, it would take COUNTLESS man-hours [no offense, ladies] to flag all the articles) to please people. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I don't see how it is OUR job to create such a system.
Lastly, I find the assertion that we're being somehow irresponsible, or refusing to handle the issue responsibly insulting. Holding the view that censorship is unnecessary or undesirable is not irresponsible.
"Censorship" is a complete red herring here. I hold that censorship is unnecessary and undesirable. I do not advocate censorship or anything resembling it.
Call it what you want. All I know is that "offensive content" and "censorship" go hand in hand. I'm sure you've seen those CDs sold with "Offensive Lyrics" right on the cover. Any censorship there? I'll make the slippery slope argument again, a move on our part to classify THIS or THAT article as POTENTIALLY objectionable is the first step towards censorship. We would be tacitly admitting (or use some other word here) that is content on the 'pedia that ought to be censored.
At the same time, on my home television system, I have my cable box programmed so that I don't surf across the shopping channels or the religious channels. I don't like those channels, and I don't want my TiVo to waste disk space recording them.
Since there are only 300 or so channels to choose from, it wasn't hard to customize my system for my own preferences.
Someone at TiVo might have argued thusly: "People should watch a variety of shows, and not be such prudes, or such anti-capitalists, or such anti-religionists. They should keep all channels accessible at all times. So we must not build into the system any tools to allow people to "filter". If they want filters, they can build their own device for doing it. But we aren't going to help."
This is not a good example. While TiVo is a proprietary hardware system that would be PROHIBITIVELY difficult to engage an after-market "sorter" for, Wikipedia is open-source software on the internet. Apples and oranges.
That'd be silly. And it's just as silly for us to not flag content with some meta-data, even if we think people are silly (and I don't) for using it.
It's not silly to not flag content. It's been mentioned before that it would be difficult, or even impossible, to flag content in an NPOV manner. This is still open to debate.
--Jimbo
All the rest aside, I agree that we're just having a friendly debate, and I do respect your position. Also, I think we need to get cracking on some juicy anti-religion articles... anything to piss of the squares. So... let's keep up the lively debate and remember, it's all in good fun. That being said.... *pbbbbbbbt* ;p
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321