Due Dilligence At Wikipedia - Lighting The Path
By Phil Butler on May 9, 2008 in Featured, action
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 -
This is definitely wrong but where do you draw the line? Should google stop indexing articles about this? I bet no-one knew about any of this content until people started writing articles about it.
I know its important to raise awareness about this kind of thing but wikipedia is an amazing resource and becoming almost a second internet. There is a LOT of questionable content on the internet but its a reflection of the world, if wikipedia is to get more like the internet this will happen more and more.
Wayne Byrne | May 9, 2008 | Reply
I agree with this, some kind of vetting of wikipedia’s content wouldn’t be a bad thing but you’ve always got to be careful to maintain freedom of speech. Its really a juggling act between protecting the innocent and allowing free speech. Cant really say anything conclusive one way or the other.
Phil | May 9, 2008 | Reply
Isn’t that a picture of a naked woman on your sidebar over there? ->
Fred | May 9, 2008 | Reply
Uhm, LMAO, Fred! How obtuse can some people be? Aren’t you confusing art and nudity for pornography?
Mihaela Lica | May 9, 2008 | Reply
Yes Fred this is a nude female form and this blog is not the “school lunchroom” of Web destinations either. Can we please define the line rather than playing cat and mouse?
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 9, 2008 | Reply
Nope. I see a butterfly! Or is that a fairy?
Mihaela Lica | May 9, 2008 | Reply
Hi,
I think the problem should be inverted. That is to say, no censorship, ever. The reason being that pre-filtering content supposes that the censor share our standards and this cannot be the case for every person, every time. A more correct approach is to allow the reader to filter content based on her threshold, In other words, we are our own best censors.
Khris
Khris | May 10, 2008 | Reply
Much like Wayne mentioned, just where do you draw the line?
Somehow I hold Wikipedia above this type of thing.
I think that there should be some form of filtering at the very least for an age consent. Heck, even YouTube does it, and I certainly don’t hold them in the same esteem as Wikipedia when it comes to submitted content.
Deborah | May 10, 2008 | Reply
There is a difference between educational, informative material discussing porn subjects but I think there should be restrictions on the type of images even in these - a distinction between whether they are gratuitous, too graphic or necessary to explain the topic fully.
Most countries surely have some type of censorship that protects the young against what it perceives to be harmful to them - on TV, movies, and print media. Wikipedia should show some respect to these.
Does anyone know of countries that do not have any censorship rules?
Sueblimely | May 11, 2008 | Reply
@ Khris,
Khris, I agree in principal to this philosophy as it applies to public information in general. However, Wikipedia is not the NYT’s, it is a public portal to knowledge and information. Human beings at this stage of development cannot even decide which soup to have before a meal.
We have to collectively decide what is proper and what is not or else ask someone with the right credentials to do it for us. The problem is getting someone with credentials so far above our own. The “no censorship” philosophy places a huge burden on parents and even more so on children. I do not agree that we are ourselves the best filters in this regard. Collectively however, we can approach such a lofty pinnacle.
I would not suppose to be the “end all” authority on this subject, but it seems painfully obvious to me that we are what we advocate to a large extent. This is how the world got or continues to be so FUBAR even at this late date. We do not enter into or even when we do …resolve or agree on any of these issues.
“Peace brother” only works well when your brother is not Hannibal Lecter (sp). I will protect you if you protect me - for my part I wish none of us had ever sullied our sexuality and were left with a more pure and gentle mental and physical vision….this can never be the case I know. So much of our collective being is darkened.
Jimmy deciding what the tone and character of Wikipedia is . is not censorship. There are plenty of other places to find dark images. What you suggest - taken to the extreme - is chaos.
Just my view my friend,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Hi Deborah,
Yes - the line is what we are looking for. The problem is that some people want it to be at the horizon of “don’t give a damn” out of either some left wing notion that freedom means whatever or a hidden agenda where fear of losing even the “ghastly” as I described it - overwhelms their lighter side. Thanks gal!
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Hi Sue,
I am not up on international law as I should be, but I do not think I would want to live in a country where images or links to child porn is legal.
We don’t have to look to the world or the cosmos to discover right from wrong on such a basal level. If you believe it is okay to let minors see the very worst even before they have a chance to experience the best….I think a person like this might be at best a marginal parent.
I like freedom as well as anyone, but I do not presuppose it involves me doing anything I want to my neighbor.
Thanks Sue,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Fresh perspective.
But we are ruining the lives of ourselves and others in yet another thousand ways everyday anyway, so I’ll just pass on this one.
Yang | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Yes Yang,
This is what we all do and why we are ruining in these thousands of ways - too many people passed.
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 11, 2008 | Reply
I think the main thing here is that Wikipedia is used as a reference resource. While it may be fine to have porn on the internet, it´s not fine to have it where children will be researching school papers and essays. There is a certain responsibility to be taken here and I think Wikipedia should consider some guidelines in this area.
As to where to draw the line . . . the same place we do for porn sites! If you would normally have to be over 18 (or 21 depending on where you are) to view this type of content, it shouldn´t be available in a school resource.
Genesis | May 11, 2008 | Reply
This is an important for two key reasons. One concerns Reputation and the other concerns Standards. My partner and I were discussing the former earlier today and she simplified many commercial and relationship affairs down to a reliance on reputation. Reputation is paramount in the process of positive word of mouth and Wikipedia runs a serious risk if it is cavalier about its reputation. Mr Walsh seems to have fallen prey as well to that eroder of Standards ‘post modernism’ i.e. anything goes and I’ll do/say what I want how I want regardless of anyone else. To explain away concerns about Reputation as simply that’s the way the Open Source Web 2.0 world is and that we need to wake up and smell the coffee is a total abidication of responsibility. Mr Walsh is being lazy. Standards matter and I lean towards philosopher Simon Blackburn on this matter. Its not just a matter of opinion whether something is good or not, accepatble or not. Some things are evidently unsavoury and unnecessary in the context of a universally accessible information resource. I can here the shreeks of ‘how dare you impose your standards on me!’ and I would respond by saying what gives you the right to say that YOUR approach is the best, don’t impose your standards on me! I return again to Reputation. Of course people have the right to freedom of expression. What Walsh et al seem to be overlooking is that the ‘place’ where this takes place might not necessarily be Wikipedia!
reasonable robinson | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Exactly Genesis, The line in the sand is what separates us (or even insulates us) from the lower primate(who in some cases act more civilized).
No one is advocating censorship at will, but this is an educational and research site primarily. Fine, we define pornography - but do we condone or promote it?
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Those who comment in favor of porn at Wikipedia are forgetting one thing: Wikipedia is rated “general audience.”
What everyone seems to fail to understand (and I pray that your friend Jimmy Wales will actually see my point) is that Wikipedia is not “X-rated” - so pornographic material has no place there.
If Wikipedia must have pornographic content, I suggest a separate domain.
If a child looks for something innocent like Valentine’s Day, chances are that he’ll also find the “sexuality” link present on that page, and land on a full glossary of links that lead to content that can be classified as anything but educational. Most of these images are posted by the same people and depict scenes from movies by the same porn director. In my view this is someone exploiting Wikipedia - and seriously, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Mihaela Lica | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Now we are getting somewhere Robinson! Exactly!
Acting on these choices is what this is all about. I am reminded of something Emanuel Kant prescribed, which I do not necessarily claim is all true, but which bears some weight in regard to the discussion.
“Insofar as reason can determine the faculty of desire as such, not only choice but also mere wish can be included under the will. That choice which can be determined by pure reason is called free choice. That which can be determined only by inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus) would be animal choice (arbitrium brutum).” - From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
We can delve into the history of human psyche and causal will etc. until hell freezes over I know. However, we must examine things in a very broad was sometimes, while at others narrowing our focus to razor sharpness. This is a quest not taken lightly.
On the one hand, we have free will, while on the other we are seemingly imbued with a conscience that dictates action. Following the Kant prerogative we must assume that the difference between good human action versus bad could be said to reside in the decision between animal instinct and high order thinking. My friend Jimmy Wales is well versed in these philosophies.
At the basic level of understanding, and coinciding with what Robinson stated, we are all about choice. Sure sexual stimulation even up to and including pornography titillates and stimulates humans. The question is; “Who and when is this mental activity suited for?” The decision to allow or distribute even, material that actually does harm children is far outside any moral imperative I ever heard of.
Robinson is correct on more than one level. We have become do lazy that even the slightest hint of forced activity sends most of us scampering for the exit sign. WTF is wrong with people? We wonder at just how our world got so Fubar and then bitch because we cannot figure it out.
The difference between a great human being and an ordinary or even evil one rests in their ability to make hard choices. Allowing pornographic content or even riding the fence on what is acceptable is a lazy choice. We are all guilty of this. Some would say: “You can’t change the world”, but changing the world is done in just such a way.
Do you want a world where small children are not exposed to the ungodly or even inhuman acts? How is such a world achieved? This mechanism works for solving all problems. The laws of physics dictate that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction - so where does inaction fall in this equation? It falls in the category of negative action. Allowing people to do and say whatever they want is an act of imperative by us all. Are we animals or something higher?
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 11, 2008 | Reply
This couldn’t be a better example of the saying ‘Your rights end where mine begin.’
I wouldn’t choose to see this form of content myself, and feel that it is below proper standards for a resource site. There are sites where you can see explicit sex of all acts galore on the internet. It does not belong on Wikipedia. But that’s my own personal perspective.
However, when it comes to our children, we all need to take a stance to protect them regardless of our own interests. They have rights, and as adults, we need to see to it that they are sheltered.
Children are curious and should never be subjected to something that they can’t discern the difference of right from wrong.
Deborah | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Deborah! Bless you! For all the profoundity of intillectual discussion on the merits of one stance or another-there is is in a nutshell.
What we value, we protect with everything we are. Those that do not value the future or the innocence resident in the soul of every child are - to be blunt - not worth the powder and lead it would take to do away with them. (an old southern saying made sweet).
All these ideas and opinions culminate in this one principal - “what is good enough for our children and for our future?”
Thanks Deborah - for straining deep thought through a crystal clear filter.
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Censorship is never a good thing. Sex, or any sexual act will never be as close to depravity as George Bush / war… Yet we would not ban these from Wikipedia.
Kolin | May 11, 2008 | Reply
Sexuality is a natural curiosity for adolescent and prepubescent kids.
I have to believe that most parents are unaware of the depth of information their children have access to. The sad part to me, is that it is taking away an already fleeting childhood which we all are entitled to.. If you google ‘porn’ , you’re going to get porn. If wikipedia references to links of images, then there should be age restrictions set in place to protect our kids.
I was really disappointed by this information. Personally, it feels like passive molestation when it is not dealt with in a more responsible manner. I’m no prude. Ask around. But when it comes to kids, I am a junk yard dog. None of us get to be kids for long. To contribute to the loss of innocence is messed up.
Pearl | May 11, 2008 | Reply
@ Kolin,
Did you read this article? George Bush’s war will never be as depraved as some other war - war and rumors of war hound us throughout our lives. We try to protect our children but cannot because the powerbrokers call the tune.
I am not sure where your sensibilities rest Kolin, but exposing children to pornography and even in some cases involving them, seems more insufferable to me that grown ups (mostly) playing at war. I might be wrong - the point is that we can protect the innocent in this way. I doubt eradicating the war in Iraq from Wikipedia would stop the war.
Censorship being good or bad? Do you think the news you get is the unfettered truth? If censorship solves problems and helps people…? I do not know….I might be for it if the uncensored version were available somewhere besides in front of my child.
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 12, 2008 | Reply
Thanks Pearl,
I agree and I am too fairly ticked about this. As you can see from some of the comments, everyone does not share in their zeal to protect the innocent. Sometimes we stand on convention until the world burns around us ….then finally (when it is too late) we take action.
Free speach….freedom …freedoms ….As Jean-Jacques Rousseau said; “How can man truly be free, when all about me I see him in chains?” People are delusional Pearl….how are we protecting one freedom at the cost of another more dire one?
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 12, 2008 | Reply
You are indeed preaching on a soapbox on the wrong town square.
See, this is not Jimmy Wales’ decision. Unless there is a strong legal reason to act, editing decisions on Wikipedia are left to the editing community. No amount of lavishing praise on Jimmy can help that.
You’ll therefore have to go explain your point of view on Wikipedia’s discussion pages.
Jay Walsh is merely a public relation staffer. He’s caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he had to put out some kind of press release, on the other hand he has no decision power and especially not the power to decide on editorial issues.
Pixie | May 12, 2008 | Reply
It might just need marking in such a way that the child blocking programs can filter it out or restrict access.
Andy Beard | May 13, 2008 | Reply
Hi Andy, Thanks for stopping by. It would seem that some rather simple mechanism could be set in place to afford a minimal protection here.
I really do not understand why such things have not already be dealt with myself but I hope something is done to rectify this.
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 13, 2008 | Reply
Hi Pixie - Thanks for your view as well.
In your comment we are dealing with several issues at once. First, my writing style and general makeup is to attempt to quantify everything. Praising Jimmy on the one hand is so the uneducated reader will know the character of the man, and so too see the irony of this situation. Secondly, it is also an expression of wonder by me as he truly is a visionary (one of the few I know I might add). Finally on this point, there is honestly noone on the Internet whom I admire more. If I can help him in any way (even in criticism) then I will do it.
As far as “the wrong soap box”, this is my outlet in efforts aligned with my thinking. I intend to discuss this topic at Wikipedia, but I do not honestly want to be just another echo in the night there. So, establishing my position prior to subsequent efforts is important in my view. My intent is to garner a much wider set of veiwpoints outside the doors of our great encyclopedia.
Finally, Jay may indeed be between a rock and a hard place, but this does not preclude choosing his words more carefully. As a PR myself, I know how easy it is to fall prey to those “duh” moments. Comments, when examined carefully, can convey the inner sense of the person making them. If he in fact made these remarks, then they at least relay a piece of his inner opinion. If he is in fact between these hard surfaces…then these words should have either A - been scripted better or B - They were lazy comments as I said.
There you have it - Phil is using his blog to keep Wikipedia from becoming just another BS and mediocre website. I am all into transparency here. How would you suggest I approach something this close to my vision? I mailed Jimmy as I wrote this post. This is “unplugged” after all…if I had asked him if I should write it..what would have been unplugged from control about that?
Always,
Phil Butler
Phil Butler | May 13, 2008 | Reply
Phil who on earth will look for porn on wiki?????
Ananya | May 13, 2008 | Reply
Ananya, thanks for participating. The answer may be “no one”, however - a child looking for Valentines Day information can easily follow links and end up watching something no one would want their child watching.
The site has a substantial connection to inappropriate material as far as minors are concerned.
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 13, 2008 | Reply
Phil,
I believe that you may partially misunderstand the position of Wikipedia in relation to the rest of the Internet.
First, it is not meant for children. It is also not rated for the “general audience”. Indeed, the Wikipedia disclaimers state that there are images and other media that people may find offensive, and that it is not the policy of Wikipedia to remove these media files unless they are illegal in Florida (or violate copyrights etc).
Second, Jimmy Wales has not led Wikipedia in years. While he is on the board, and is very respected in the community, ultimately it is the tens of thousands of editors who make Wikipedia work. In any pluralistic, multicultural, international society you will find many opinions on the same topic; this topic is one of them.
With that said, you can make a few strong arguments. First, you can argue that the content is not legal, and Wikimedia (effectively the hosting company) should remove it. Second, you can argue that it is immoral/unacceptable, and that the community should remove it and change policies to disallow it.
On the first point, there is little precedent. Wikipedia is not targeted at children; its principal purpose is clearly not obscene content; the test for obscenity in the United States is very stringent and as an educational entity Wikipedia will likely easily fall within the bounds of the non-obscene: please see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test for more info. Furthermore, the courts have generally found that nudity and anatomical descriptions alone (and even images of sexual intercourse) are not obscene. The legality argument may be a winning one in some jurisdictions, but not in most of the United States in high likelihood.
Now, some individual items may indeed be more clear-cut obscenity or illegal. Fortunately, Wikipedia’s users are generally pretty good at judging illegality; in the cases where they are wrong for specific pieces of content, the legal system is obviously available to help.
The second argument is a moral one. It too is fraught with problems. Whose morality is best? Mine, or yours, or hers or theirs? Some people see nothing wrong with young adults or unsupervised children learning about what’s going on in the world in terms of images or text. After all, if the child is interested, they will find this content elsewhere (Google for “sex” and click the first link). And just because one person chooses to raise their child in an environment that restricts these parts of knowledge until later in their life (at some point they will learn, of course) doesn’t mean that everyone — including other children whose parents do not carry such convictions, or other adults — should be denied media representations of these items.
The moral argument ultimately falls on a more practical consideration. As a global, open resource, it is not in anybody’s power to limit what gets placed in Wikipedia. The only exception is the people who host it — Wikimedia itself. However, Wikimedia is presented with numerous moral arguments at the same time, from many of its users: you, and ten thousand other users. It would be unfair for Wikimedia to select your argument as the one it makes into an office policy, overruling the majority that holds the opposite opinion. Therefore, Wikimedia takes the only real course it can: it draws the line at illegality, and leaves the rest to its community.
The correct place for your moral argument is the community itself. The discussion on pornography, and censorship (as defined by the community), has taken place before and can take place again — Wikipedia is fluid enough to support this. However, only a well-reasoned, persistently and politely argued, and finally _popular_ opinion is going to win over the thousands of contributors and become policy.
Best regards,
-ilya
Ilya Haykinson | May 16, 2008 | Reply
Mrs. Haykinson, if you consider that gay porn has a right place at Wikipedia, when all you people do is censor any links people try to add on your “incredible resource” to their sites, I personally declare that Wikipedia is becoming a dangerous place and a shame for what it could be.
I suppose that for your editors a Michael Lucas porn director born in 1972 is more important than Warren Buffett who doesn’t even have a page on your precious Wikipedia.
I mean, gosh, the porn star earned his place in the World’s patrimony according to your editors. Also, I find it great, Mrs. Haykinson that you consider it moral to have a Wikipedia award for contributions to pornography. With “ideals” like yours, no wonder that morality goes down the drain. Should the regular user of Wikipedia thank you for imposing pornographic content in her daily routine? I suppose you’ll answer yes. Excellent. As from now, till this issue is solved, and Mrs.Haykinson, it will be solved, Wikipedia.org proudly stays near all the banned pornographic sites in my internet safety software.
Mihaela Lica | May 16, 2008 | Reply
Ilya,
In my mind I see no real argument here at all. The position of Wikipedia, if it supports the degree of pornography exhibited on the site, is reprehensible. Hiding behind the technicality of mundane law does not seem to be a posture for higher thinking individuals in this case.
I never presupposed that Jimmy was working every day with the Wikipedia end these days, but my contention is that it is his creation. If it were mine, I would be concerned at the least. I see this as a moral issue more than a legal one myself. Ethics would seem to dictate that porn stars on pages accessible by minors is not exactly on the level of “higher thinking” we might wish for.
I do not think my voice would carry much weight either in a forum of people who have already buried their head in the sand on the issue. Once again the argument: “Well porn is everywhere!” emerges. To be honest, this is an ingnorant assertion and not worthy in any argument.
The bottom line is, what are we for? If Wikipedia is not for kids, who the hell is it for? I understand that rule by committee is the law there to a degree, but no one would presuppose that there is no hierarchy at Wikipedia…where have you found there to be none?
Your admonition to test myself with the Miller Test failed. The pages in question fail in every regard. Images of gay men in graphic depiction of sexual activity is not proper in many a venue. I just cannot fathom how anyone could even argue this point to be honest. Perhaps I am naive.
Your statement:
“However, only a well-reasoned, persistently and politely argued, and finally _popular_ opinion is going to win over the thousands of contributors and become policy.” Makes me think that even the best of intentions by a developer can be inhabited or taken over by the unethical. All the arguments for Wikipedia’s stance here to date, take on the same obtuse distraction of Walsh’s.
Examine what you are arguing for please? There is really no better deterrminant than this symbolic and real intention. It is illegal to kill people too, but just how close does the good person ever get to acting out even in their mind such a crime. Wikipedia according to you is only concerned with Florida law…not exactly the standard by which all mankind should be held accountable.
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 16, 2008 | Reply
After reading the article and all comments I note that the central issue of the entire discussion is expressed very clearly already in Phil’s first comment:
“Its really a juggling act between protecting the innocent and allowing free speech.”
To the many arguments raised already in the discussion I would like to add that
1. protecting children from explicit content they might find on Wikipedia would not help very much, since e.g. a simple Google search easily discloses even worse material. Using the internet at school is not just based upon Wikipedia.
2. The idea that any legal content is in principal suitable for Wikipedia is not just a matter of free speech but one of the basic principles of the free encyclopedia
3. Other sites use some kind of censorship, but not primarily to protect the innocent but for other (e.g. commercial) reasons: weblogs may indicate content as NSFW and YouTube does not allow explicit material, not to offend its visitors)
In view of these and other considerations discussed above, my conclusion would be: no illegal material in Wikipedia, but also no censorship.
Rob Jongschaap | May 17, 2008 | Reply
Rob, As always you capture most of the essence of a discussion. Yes, it is a balancing act and an important one.
My only two points of contention are:
1. Wikipedia is not a search engine - Google is
2. The overriding issue for Wales and Wikipedia is credibiity and ethics with regard to child safety.
This is really a moral issue to me as it should be to everyone. I think of a great guy owning a really nice store where some people have scribbled obscene or tacky grafitti on the front windows. Does the kind shop owner leave it on his otherwise tasteful shop - or eradicate it?
I know this is an oversimplification, but we really are what we condone. Just because porn is nearly everywhere does not demand that we allow it literally everywhere, but that we make sure it does not become some pervasive as to invade every corner of our minds.
Thanks Rob,
Always,
Phil
Phil Butler | May 18, 2008 | Reply