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(a)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