[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:07, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com> wrote:
> Uh, ok. I'm pansexual and I like pornography. I'm also a feminist (I believe
> in equality). I'm also tired of being accused of being a prudish American
> because I think it's stupid that we have to have a mediocre photograph of a
> naked woman as the man shot for pregnancy. I also figure that if people want
> to censor what the hell goes on in their own home, they should have the
> power to do that. Smart kids learn to get around it anyway, if they really
> need to see a decapitation or a pair of breasts on Wikipedia.
>
> Being called names and being lumped into a "oh all Americans are pro filter,
> blahblahblah, think nudity is bad" is really tiresome.
>
> That quote also isn't mine.

I didn't see any prominent poster on foundation-l to call someone
"prudish American" or so. I mentioned a couple of times that majority
of American Wikipedians actually don't want that filter or, at most,
don't care about it. And your position is clearly different than the
position of other proponents of image filter.

However, it is true that proponents of image filter issue are
dominantly Americans and that the number of involved Americans doesn't
correlate with their share in the number of editors. So, that's the
issue of particular part of American society, not the issue of all
Americans.

You should also note that we aren't talking here about mediocre
photos, Second Life pornography, and tons of penises, but about *all*
depictions, including very useful ones and, most importantly, about
shorter or longer movies on sexual education. Once a filter -- always
a filter. If censorship becomes acceptable once, we would just talk
about its nuances, not about its existence. Ultimate passive
censorship goal is exactly to forbid everything related sex to their
children, including access to sexual education. Ultimate active goal
is to have filtered Wikipedia by default and access to nudity just
with ID card or social security number.

Note what Tim Starling said about this tool: No pro-censorship person
would be happy with it if it assumes non-censored Wikipedia by
default. They want hard lock and they won't leave us alone until they
get it.

Issues raised by German Wikipedians are also very relevant. In
principle, the proposed filter is not bad at all. However, everything
behind the filtering is more or less problematic. Most importantly,
that would make a mess on Commons and give possibility to software
companies which make censorship software to use Wikimedian work for
their tools.

> I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think "girls should not be
> educated" about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find
> "sexual content" by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom,
> watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's "SEX." Knowing how I
> was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I
> wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for some
> juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia (because
> we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).
>
> And I'm sure there are plenty of other people, regardless of gender,
> nationality, sexuality or other demographics that probably would feel the
> same way.
>
> It's funny that you just turned this into a "think about the children"
> feminism "thing."  I guess in your eyes I'm a failed feminist. ;)
>
> -Sarah
> Who learned more about sexuality from Madonna then she ever did from school
> books or the internet.

I didn't say that you are against education in sexuality, as you
stated that clearly a week or two ago. I said that your small comfort
(not to learn how to turn off images in web browser and think about it
when you browse articles about pregnancy and similar) means a lot to
those who don't know where to search for information. In other words,
I think that your comfort is a small price to allow a daughter of
religious fundamentalists to educate herself on issues related to sex.

I don't think that you are a failed feminist :) That's a common and
not particularly important motif in feminism. The difference is that
the most of feminists are not in position to influence censoring
Wikipedia, unlike you. That means that, as a feminist, you should
analyze the situation better than just having preference toward a
couple of photos and general position toward freedom of choice.