[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

[Anthony]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org>wrote:

> On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote:
> > I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the
> > websites.  I wouldn't call that "making a decision on behalf of another",
> > but I assume that's what you're referring to.  If I'm wrong, please
> correct
> > me.
>
> I'm including:
>
> Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly
> offensive images from the site.
>
> Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like
> movie classifications. Then enable client-side filtering.
>
> Solution 3: Tag images with objective descriptors, chosen to be useful
> for the purposes of determining offensive character by the reader. The
> reader may then choose a policy for what kinds of images they wish to
> filter.
>
> The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that the individual
> should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for
> some other party to infringe that freedom.


Well, I fully agree with that fundamental principle, and yet I wouldn't
categorize any of those "solutions" as violating that principle, nor would I
characterize them as "making decisions on behalf of another".

And really, I don't see how you could possibly characterize these actions
that way.  You say "Some people may wish to see that content, it would
be wrong for us to stop them."  I would think the libertarian response to
that is that a desire to have something does not constitute a right to force
others to provide it to you.

Now, granted, I don't think the line should be drawn at "particularly
offensive images".  I'd say the primary, if not sole criterion (besides the
obvious legality and free license), would be the bona fide educational value
of the image.  I'd say the image of Saint Terese, while obviously highly
offensive to some, would be acceptable if (and, in my opinion, only if) some
text was included right on the image page which explained such things as who
created it, what he was trying to say with it, what historical impact it
had, etc.

I think such a task, applied to any and all questionable images, would also
be something that could be pointed to should the media come by and cry
"pornography".  The explanation should be right there on the image page
justifying the educational nature of the image.  Yes, there will be some
people who will remain opposed to such images regardless of the explanation,
but at that point (and not before it) I think we can properly treat such
people as obviously irrational.

Of course, the explanations would need to be good ones.  I can think of a
lot of bad explanations that would likely be offered for the inclusion of
certain images, and I don't at all trust the community to recognize them as
such.

> I wouldn't call them moderates.  They are most certainly not moral
> > relativist, and they have no desire to find compromises between the other
> > two/three terrible positions.  Let's add a fourth faction, the
> "educators".
>
> Suit yourself. But I think it's more worthwhile to classify the
> ideologues than it is to classify the pragmatists.
>

I think you should consider that some of the "educators" aren't pragmatists
at all.  I look at your three categories, and I like some of each, and
dislike some of each.  I fully agree with the principle you ascribe to the
libertarians "that the individual should have freedom of thought and action,
and that it is wrong for some other party to infringe that freedom".  But a
freedom is just that, a freedom, not an entitlement.  People who want to
view porn should (and do) have the freedom to view porn.  But that doesn't
mean the WMF has a duty to host it for them.  The "religious conservatives"
are probably right that seeing certain images, at least for people at a
certain age, and especially without the proper context, is dangerous.  I'm
not quite sure what you mean by "morally dangerous", but hard core
pornography, especially certain forms of hard core pornography, is probably
not very healthy.  I certainly don't want my son or daughter viewing porn
videos as he's learning about sex.  Finally, there's what you call "the
moderates".  Actually I don't see much value in that position at all, at
least as you describe it.  But to the extent "the moderates" advocate taking
some ideas from both of the other two positions, I guess I can agree with
that.

As you describe them, "the moderates" are the pragmatists, and that's a big
part of what they've gotten wrong.  I would advocate that the WMF adopt a
principled position with respect to pornography, and then let people decide
whether or not they wish to use an encyclopedia built on those principles.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor <
Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com <Simetrical%2Bwikilist at gmail.com>> wrote:

> [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image
> of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and
> [[Goatse.cx]] does not contain an image of its subject matter.  Why?
>

Primarily because of copyright issues, at least with regard to the latter, I
believe.  I used to joke about "what's next, a photo on Goatse.cx?" when
arguing with the "when you look up X you expect a photo of X" crowd, but
then, for a while it actually came true.