Anyone scanning the pages of my articles these last 2 years will find one overriding common denominator – I admire excellence. This article is about an underlying certainty resident in the world even when considering the most excellent things we find – that is negativity transgressing, invading and even attempting to destroy anything of excellence.
Chinks In Armor
For every superlative effort, there is always a subversive undercurrent which is at odds with the essence of a thing. In this case, my absolute favorite Web 2.0 endeavor Wikipedia and subsequently one of my most respected friends Jimmy Wales. I write this out of concern, and also in an effort to keep pure one of the most idealistic and useful ventures ever undertaken.
Lighted Through A Glass
My partner Mihaela Lica was doing some research earlier today when she ran across a disturbing article about Wikipedia and of all things pornography. We are all assailed by inappropriate content and particularly pornography ever day in our email, in our surfing and just about anywhere on the Web we go. In a rather cutting article, Mihaela in her direct and incisive way, attempts to call Jimmy’s attention to something that can damage not only Wikipedia, but something closer to she and I personally - a friend’s vision for rather superlative excellence. To be honest, before she called my attention to the situation I was somewhat oblivious (or at worst stupid) to the gravity of this issue.
The issue here is not really censorship, but rather doing what is right in the face of any opposition. I know Jimmy Wales and have defended his proper action a dozen times or more with my humble efforts. I am quite sure he is aware of this issue, but as convinced that he is so busy as to have had to delegate the handling of it too. The problem here is an age old one - -censorship versus decency. My argument here is simple: "You are part of the solution or part of the problem." I know what Jimmy Wales stands for, and it is certainly not exposing (however circuitously) minors or even adults to the darker recesses of humanity. I know, my definition of "darker" may be subjective - right. My definition of rotten bananas is also subjective, but after a spell anyone can identify rotting fruit.
There is a time and a place for everything, and images of adult behavior - even deviant or at least divergent sorts on the world’s most visited encyclopedia is simply not acceptable. In particular images and links to them which can easily be accessed by children of any age, should obviously be edited out. Come on people, really! There is no sane argument for decent people to justify not making safeguards in this case.
Arguing Darkly
The arguments I have undertaken even today in writing and discussing this are the same old ones we all know and hate. "You should take care to safeguard what your kids do on the Internet!" Sure, but this is as lame and "buck passing" as it gets. I suppose this quote by Wikimedia Communications Director Jay Walsh is as telling of obtuse, delegated dis-intelligent thinking as I ever saw:
"You could open up a classic Britannica or World Book Encyclopedia, and you’d find entries on sex and sexual topics, perhaps not as deep or prolific as you might find on Wikipedia, but that’s kind of a reality of the 21st century.
In two years I have never had cause to question anything my friend Wales has done, but in this case hiring a mouthpiece that could even summon such a statement is questionable at best. Wikipedia is something to be held higher than other entities, any comparison to traditional encyclopedias is a pure statement of ludicrous insolence in my view. Wikipedia is far more prolific and exposed than the dinosaurs mentioned however credible they may be. Furthermore, acquiescence of our present and future to the dogs or stark and dark reality is mutually exclusive of Jimmy Wales’s vision and him as a person I know.
This man Walsh is essentially being quoted bragging on the deep and prolific pornography aspect at Wikipedia, and this is unbelievable to me. This is tantamount to saying: " We don’t care!" As human beings, we have to stand for something. Anything that reaches into the homes and hearts of people on a level like Wikipedia is damn serious business and should not be taken so lightly, and especially not by an official of the organization.
The Right Thing
To be honest, I am still in disbelief as I know Mihaela was when this caught her attention. So, any child (save those whose parents have banned Wikipedia’s domain) can simply surf some pages and discover subject matter and images unfit for any of us really. The point here is simple to me though; "Why aren’t these pages protected just like any porn site would be?" This precaution is not even up to par with the standards Wales has embellished onto Wikipedia, so how come Walsh just "brushed off" the whole subject in his apparently arrogant and I must say ignorant way? If we search ourselves, the answers to these questions are fairly simple. What are our most treasured values? Who needs our protection the most? What is the right thing to do when considering how we protect the innocent?
Jimmy Wales hates the accolades I throw his way, as he is a humble but quite extraordinary man. This is not to say he is perfect, but I know what he does to help people all over the world. My justifiable admonition to a great friend is to fix this - period. A search for pornography on Wikipedia should reveal only textual definitions of the term, and at the most refer to another source for more in depth review. My Wikipedia would simply say; "Some things should not be discovered even on Wikipedia." The referring link would be to Encyclopedia Britannica online or whatever, and not to any definition of the term. I know this seems excessive, but just who are the people who would argue with such a stance? Likely not academic prize winners doing valuable research I will grant you. The right thing to do is to protect the innocent and also to exhibit the light that is in us and the things we do.
Light
I know I sound like some would be preacher on his soap box, but believe me I am no saint. The thing is, we are all here to expose the light in ourselves. There are two sides to all of us and the only defining principal we have to cling to is our ability to suppress our darker side and show to the best of our ability what is good in our hearts. In most instances, as we all know, this can be a sometimes excruciating task in the face of reality. Our lives are fraught with stumbling stones set in front of us for some nebulous cosmic reason. This is not the case with this story. We are talking about what we might call "due diligence", and in the case of Walsh’s comments - thoughtful introspection. I know his comments are not from the heart of Wales let alone that man’s intentions.
So, what is "due diligence "? In my view, making it all but impossible for the innocent to be harmed in any way by content on Wikipedia. There is a vast gulf of import between doing a homework assignment based on an inaccurate Wikipedia reference and getting a bad mark on your paper, and an innocent child seeing another under age child involved in mature (or even sometimes ghastly) actions. I am clinging to the term "ghastly" as I write this, because it exemplifies how I feel after having read Mihaela’s article and doing my research - I thought; "Wow, even our most altruistic and fine endeavors can be overshadowed by a ghastly darkness." -Ghastly -
Every developer out there want to make a tool that some thousands of users will be enamored with, but few really offer viable solutions. As for business tools, most of these are either so expensive or so complicated to use that few have the stomach for them unless they are a necessity. According to a story I read on 
Hakia
Just when you thought no widget had been left unturned, 
