[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not censorship

Tue Feb 15 07:42:50 UTC 2005

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Skyring said:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>This is going to happen anyway.  We have an article on Donkey Punch and
>one on Dirty Sanchez, and those alone, unillustrated, are enough to take
>Wikipedia well out of the realm of the child-safe.  If we can agree that
>there will be a demand for a child-safe fork of Wikipedia, let us start
>formulate the policies and mechanisms that will enable us build it in
>tandem with the main one.  There's no need for us to bowdlerize our main
>fork if all we need do is produce a child-safe website containing filtered
>content on those subject that would be of interest to K12.
>  
>
I strongly disagree. This is the web, yes, but there are quite a number 
of people who just want to be able to browse and read about sexual 
topics without being exposed to outrageous photographs "in your face". 
There is minimal harm done in linking or having a tiny thumbnail linking 
to the larger image. Appropriate encyclopedic images should be kept, but 
should not be thrust in our readers' faces. It's just plain common 
sense. It's the same reason we don't directly link to Goatse; we err on 
the side of caution. The same applies here.

I prefer linking, actually, because it's only one click away for those 
who want to view it. It's five clicks on the other hand for those who 
don't want to view it. Assuming the two groups are equal, the decision 
is common sense.

There's a dimension I feel everyone in this debate has been missing. It 
doesn't matter that the image is harmless or that a thumbnail hurts 
nobody or that censorship is wrong or that most of us aren't really 
offended. What matters is what our readers think. Like it or not, our 
readers are still squeemish about these things. It doesn't matter that 
four billion people won't be offended by these images if the other two 
billion are the only ones who have access to Wikipedia and a substantial 
number of them are offended. These people will not like it, even if it's 
just a tiny thumbnail. They have no good reason; all they know is they 
don't like it. And until the other four billion gain access to Wikipedia 
or the two billion stop being "prudes", we have to live with it.

Without editors, Wikipedia is nothing. Without readers, Wikipedia is 
nothing. We, editors, cannot impose our opinions on the readers. And a 
substantial amount of our readers are offended by inline images of a man 
sucking his dick. It's simple as that. It doesn't matter *why* they're 
offended; nothing we say can change their minds. They'll just leave, 
with probably a bad thing or two to say the next time they hear the word 
"Wikipedia".

Remember, our image is integral as well. No matter how we try to 
convince people, the damage has been done if we allow seriously 
offensive images to be displayed inline. For most people who can read 
Wikipedia, it's just too much to take. They don't care; they don't want 
the image shoved in their face or their kids' face or anyone's face. 
Whether they have a good reason or not, it doesn't matter. We cannot and 
should not persuade them to change their opinion.

I think this dispute marks a critical turning point in our history - 
will the readers' or editors' interests triumph? It's interesting here, 
because the editors are under no obligation to continue work, and there 
is substantial overlap between readers and editors. Our case is unique, 
and the only reason the editors' interests have held out so long is 
because until now, most readers have also been editors. That is no 
longer the case. Wikipedia is reaching for a broader audience everyday, 
and we must cater to this audience which is considerably more 
conservative and technology-averse than our traditional editors.

This image dispute is not the only example of readers versus editors; 
just look at the efforts to move editor-only templates to the talk pages.

Until recently, the interests of most editors and most readers 
overlapped. This is no longer the case, and we can no longer assume 
people will understand how or why Wikipedia works, nor can we assume 
they will make an effort to do so. We now have to respond to consumers' 
needs appropriately, and how well we do this will be a significant 
indicator of Wikipedia's viability.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])