[Wikimediaau-l] Wikipedia and schools

[Andrew Garrett]

2008/12/9 private musings <thepmaccount at gmail.com>:
> My answer right now to the question 'should wikipedia be available in
> schools' is 'no' - I'd be interested to hear yours.
>
> I think it'd be great to lead the way on a community level in figuring out
> how best to communicate this - you know - accentuating the positives,
> communicating clearly the nature of the wiki beast etc.
>
> Stuff that I've done in this area goes back a little way - primarily in
> 'project space' with;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents  and recently
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sexual_content
>
> On a side note, I believe Commons has a bit of catch up to do in terms of
> policy and practice in dealing with images best described as 'edgy' and
> uncharitably described as free porn, and whilst I'm happy to talk about that
> here, I guess the most 'on topic' matter in hand is how this (and indeed
> recent press coverage) impact our outreach work, and what we might be able
> to do to best work with schools etc.

You're resting your entire argument on the assumption that
encyclopedic, earnest and frank discussion of sexuality is a weakness,
and something to be ashamed of. I don't agree that children need to be
"protected" from sexuality any more than they need to be "protected"
from non-heterosexual influences. History, past and present, shows
that those societies in which sexuality is discussed openly,
earnestly, and honestly, have the lowest rates of sexually transmitted
infection, teen pregnancy, and divorce. While many of the powers that
be (parents and teachers, as well as the government of the day) are
afraid of earnest discussion of sexuality, I don't see why we ought to
indulge them.

Even if you accept the idea that pornography is inherently damaging to
society and to viewers (which is an entirely different, but related
argument, and I can certainly see arguments on either side, regardless
of my feelings on it), it does not necessarily follow that sexual
content is also damaging to society. In your crusades against
sexualised content, you have consistently denied or ignored the
distinction between smut (that is, something that appeals purely to
the prurient interest), and tasteful but relevant illustration (that
is, something which would also appeal to curiosity or a more
intellectual interest).

The fact of the matter is that a basic understanding of human anatomy
is essential to any well-rounded education, and I would far prefer
that a child comes to this understanding through tasteful, but earnest
images (including photographs), rather than a mishmash of unclear and
over-complicated diagrams (made complicated to mask the sexual aspect
of them), vague description, and personal experience that most of us
have used to come to our current understanding of the anatomy of both
genders.

I therefore view your, and other's attempts to suppress representation
of sexuality for fear that it is 'inappropriate' for children (without
any stipulation as to the reasons for this assertion) as misguided at
best, and at worst willful denial of the education that children need
to function correctly in society. Sexuality is a part of society - an
integral part, as it happens, it governs much of our lives. This will
remain the case despite the attempts to suppress it by you, the IWF
and other organisations.

-- 
Andrew Garrett