[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and "indecent" content

[Wily D]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Thomas Larsen
<larsen.thomas.h at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> As you probably know, the United Kingdom's Internet Watch Foundation
> (IWF) recently blocked (and subsequently unblocked) several Wikipedia
> articles on the basis that they contained what what was allegedly an
> indecent picture of a naked pre-pubescent girl (a cover of the Virgin
> Killer album). While the IWF's ban on these pages was badly
> implemented and perhaps in itself inappropriate, there is a serious
> issue at stake here—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and, since it is
> reached by thousands if not millions of school students on a daily
> basis, should it be carrying these kinds of pictures?
>
> I've heard two main arguments in favour of keeping the specific Virgin
> Killer picture, and similar images, so far. The first position pivots
> on the clause in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (which is
> official Wikipedia policy) that states that "Wikipedia is not
> censored"; the second is based on the argument that the picture has
> not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be
> included in Wikipedia.
>
> The argument from the standpoint that Wikipedia is not censored seems
> to be easily refuted, at least to me. Wikipedia claims to be, first
> and foremost, an _encyclopedia_; thus, some types of material are
> appropriate for inclusion, and other types are not—high standards of
> scholarship should be maintained throughout the project. The "not
> censored" clause in Wikipedia policy, though, seems to be commonly
> (mis?)understood to allow unregulated free expression and unrestricted
> content on Wikipedia; it is my understanding, at least, that this is
> not, or was not originally, the case. The clause that Wikipedia is not
> censored appears to me to be a kind of disclaimer for readers:
> "Wikipedia doesn't have any paid staff to check that content contained
> in the encyclopedia is appropriate for younger readers; therefore, you
> should know that you can find material that you may find objectionable
> here." I believe that the clause was originally written with the
> intent of giving readers fair warning about what they might run into,
> not for justifying the inclusion of all types of material. Wikipedia
> claims to be an encyclopedia; well, according to established standards
> of traditional scholarship, this picture would not be displayed in any
> "true" encyclopedia—at least, I don't see Encyclopædia Britannica
> including it anytime soon, and Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger has
> already stated that the image won't be appearing on Citizendium (see
> http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/11/citizendium-safe-for-virgins/).

Britannica is not the correct comparison.  Compare maybe
http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Heavy-Metal-Daniel-Bukszpan/dp/0760742189
The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal or somesuch.  Wikipedia is both a
general and specialist encyclopaedia, servicinga wide variety of
purposes.  If we were just trying to duplicate EB with free licensing,
we'd all be wasting out time (after all, there is a PD version -
1911).

> The argument from the standpoint that the picture has not yet been
> declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in
> Wikipedia, seems even weaker than the previous one. It hinges on a
> critical point—the assumption that if content is legal, Wikipedia can
> and _should_ include it. This is incorrect, as I have stated and
> justified above: Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and according
> to this standard it should only include certain types of content.
> Legality, therefore, can only define material that must be _excluded_;
> it does not dictate what should be _included_.
>
> Some users have expressed worry over the precedent that might be set
> if the picture was deleted or removed from the articles it appears
> in—"Next," they say, "it'll be images of Muhammed." Well, I'm not
> going to argue here for the inclusion or exclusion of images of
> Muhammed; but I will say that, unlike images of Muhammed, the Virgin
> Killer album cover image and other pictures like it are considered
> indecent, obscene, taboo, and/or distasteful by _general people_ (as
> opposed to radical religious fundamentalists, free speech advocates,
> commercial stakeholders, et cetera) in practically all human cultures.
>
> Pictures like these can be described using words, and they do not have
> to be shown in all of their gory detail—personally, I have not viewed
> the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, yet I have learnt
> of its general content through what has been said about it. Should
> Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia and reaches millions of
> people daily—many, if not _most_, of them school students—really be
> distributing images such as the one that prompted the IWF ban?
>
> I hope that we can engage in polite, reasoned intellectual debate
> rather than hinging on ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT bigotry.
>
> Cheers and best regards,
>
> —Thomas Larsen
>

Cheers
Brian