On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:08:31 -0500, Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:45:29AM +1100, Skyring
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:20:45 -0800 (PST), Rick
<giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
We've had this discussion on several pages.
Nobody can agree on
what "explicit images" means. Do we slap that tag on the pictures
from Abu Graib? From Auschwitz? From Dresden? How about images of
Adolf Hitler and George Bush?
I would say that images which would not normally be found in school
encyclopaedias or museums such as the Smithsonian would be a good rule
of thumb, and I'm not just talking about sexual images.
The Smithsonian, of course, is the work of the U.S. government, which
has all manner of politically-driven standards it must follow. This is
not a problem we have.
Indeed not. Nevertheless, the standards are there and doubtless drive
the public perception of what is proper to display to the public in
general and schoolchildren in particular.
I was in the
Holocaust Museum in Washington a few weeks back and
although schoolchildren are welcomed and encouraged to attend, certain
exhibitions had warnings posted at the entrance. And rightly so.
I was in the National Museum of the American Indian a few months ago. I
was surprised by how -little- there was about the bloodier and more
unpleasant parts of the history. I don't know if that's because the
museum operators chose to exhibit mostly "friendly" or "politically
correct" bits, or because people with a well-deserved grudge didn't care
to participate in creating the museum. Or maybe I somehow missed the
wing with the smallpox blankets and the Trail of Tears.
You are correct, but I think you are reading more into my example than
was ever put into it. Certainly Wikipedia does not seem to suffer from
any such coyness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trail_of_Tears
I don't
think there is any hard and fast guide as to what exactly
makes an image offensive, disturbing or explicit, but I think that the
Wikipedia community could be trusted to find a consensus on a case by
case basis. My feeling is that the Autofellatio photograph would be
generally agreed as being one that should not be generally accessible
to schoolchildren.
My opinion is that the Autofellatio photograph is not a very good image
for an encyclopedia ... *not* because it depicts a man licking his
penis, but because it is stylistically poor and unfitting.
Likewise, my opinion is that the Goatse.cx image is not fitting for
Wikipedia because displaying it is far too close to *participating* in
the trolling-behavior with which that image is so closely linked.
Schoolchildren don't much enter into it.
Perhaps we are beating different drums. I don't particularly care
about such images. In the grand scheme of Wikipedia they are trivia.
What I do care about is the spectre of some hardliner with a huge
television following deciding that such images make Wikipedia
unsuitable for children, demonstrating how easily such images may be
accessed, and mounting a crusade against Wikipedia with the objective
of forcing schools and parents to boycott this thing of ours.
I use
schoolchildren as an example, not because I want to emasculate
or prudify Wikipedia to the level that it offends nobody, but because
schoolchildren are prime users of information resources such as
Wikipedia, and the last thing we should do is to make it difficult for
them to use Wikipedia. I know that some people here think that
individula users should accept all responsibility, but many teachers
and parents don't see it that way.
I'm guessing that by saying that we would "make it difficult for school-
children to use Wikipedia" you mean that by depicting sexuality frankly
we would tickle the sensors of [[censorware]] programs, causing
Wikipedia to be blocked.
No.
Sadly, there are many fools in the world, and fools
appear to be the
chief market for censorware. Both the flaws and the deliberate biases
of popular censorware products have been more than adequately
demonstrated. We are talking about software which already regularly
blocks educational material on breast cancer and HIV/AIDS; which has
been found to selectively block pro-choice (abortion-rights) sites but
not pro-life (anti-abortion) sites; and which in one case has blocked
TIME Magazine's Web site when TIME criticized censorware.
(See
http://www.peacefire.org/info/blocking-software-faq.html.)
I don't see any way Wikipedia can benefit from kowtowing to that kind of
nonsense. If Wikipedia is blocked by censorware, so much the worse for
censorware; it will be one more illustration of its uselessness and one
more charge to be brought against its use.
I agree, but the inevitable result of allowing offensive images,
especially sexually explicit images, to be freely available to anyone
who looks up Wikipedia is that there will be strong and vocal
opposition, and millions of US schoolchildren will be denied access.
The more well-known Wikipedia becomes, the sooner this will happen. I
really cannot blame parents, school boards and other community leaders
if they act to prevent children from accessing graphic images such as
a bloke sucking himself off, but such action would also deny children
access to thousands of well-researched articles which are not in
themselves offensive.
I was engaged
in discussion in another forum, and someone brought up
an example of the Wikipedia article on the Nile River. An innocuous
article, one might imagine, but it so happened that at the time my
correspondent was opening it up for the benefit of a schoolchild it
had recently been vandalised and consisted of nothing but obscenities.
This sounds to me like you're comparing people who upload controversial
images with people who vandalize Wikipedia.
No. I've moved on to another topic now.
That doesn't seem to me
like a very productive comparison to make.
Maybe we should be thinking about having default
material that is
known to be in a useful and "safe" state and that the "live"
material
can only be accessed by specifically setting some flag or clicking on
an accept button or some similar mechanism.
Wikipedia's job is to describe the world, and the world is "live" and
not "safe", too.
The world also includes bigots and religious crusaders with huge
followings, and I make no doubt that they do not share your opinions.
--
Peter in Canberra