[WikiEN-l] Reply to Tony, David, and Christiaan

Wed Feb 16 00:35:48 UTC 2005

Sorry, I get mine in digest form -- I'm sure I'm
breaking a thread.  

Tony's reply to me included the following:

> In my opinion we should just stick
> it into "What
> Wikipedia is not".  Wikipedia is not a
> classroom-friendly environment.

If this is true, Tony (and perhaps it is), I think
it's sad.  Part of the vision Jimbo often shares is
the idea of sending Wikipedia to poor schools in
developing nations -- I'd hate to think we were
abandoning that dream.  If we are, maybe I need to
take some time and think about what I'm really doing
at Wikipedia: granted, the ideal of zero censorship is
its own noble enterprise, but is it the noble
enterprise I signed on for?  A difficult question. I'm
not advocating paranoia (deleting all sex-related
articles and pretending humans are born under
cabbages).  I'm suggesting that there is a difference
between an article seriously detailing what a sexual
practice is and an article with a picture of a man
sucking his penis.  The first one I can see in a
school -- perhaps a liberal-minded school, but a
school nonetheless.  I can't really envision a school
where the picture is acceptable.  Maybe I'm not
imaginative enough.

David Gerard commented in reply to me:

> What other classes of photos would you require be
> links rather than inline
> in this case, and would the planned option to have
> images as either links
> or inline be of use in this context?
> 
> - d.

David, I'm not completely clear what you're asking me.
 If I understand you correctly, I'd argue that any
explicit depiction of violent killing or dismemberment
would also qualify as a linked photo topic.  Again,
it's not because Wikipedia should describe in detail
the horror of what humanity does to humanity.  It's
that seeing it visually depicted can be overwhelming. 
We should absolutely talk about Nick Berg.  We should
absolutely give people the opportunity to watch a
video of what happened to Nick Berg.  I don't think it
therefore follows that we need to stream that video
into the article directly.  The goal is to educate and
inform.  If people honestly can't see a
difference....well, I'm baffled, and I guess I'll have
to think about how to explain the distinction.  And
the suggested option would be a good one, David,
assuming that the default was to link.  If the default
is "inline", that means that most of the users we'll
drive off will be driven off, since they'll see
whatever image shocks them before they discover the
toggle switch in "my preferences".

Christiaan said in reply to me:

> > sexual acts, then I  won't stop editing, but I'm
> afraid I'll have to 
> > stop recommending it to most of the people I
> currently recommend it to 
> > (normally families with bright teenage children,
> given my work in a 
> > high school).
> 
> If they're bright I'm sure they'll make their own
> way here.
> 
> Christiaan

I'm sure they will, Christiaan.  I'm not suggesting
that what I do is all that remarkable.  But I am sure
we all do recommend the site to others (I'm personally
responsible for about a dozen people knowing and
relying on Wikipedia for information, though sadly all
refuse to edit -- I'm sure most of you have invited
many more than I have), and so I think it's legitimate
to ask us all to consider whether we will still do
this.

Recently, in my area, the publically owned television
station (a type of tv called "Public Access" in my
area) banned a program from its channel that was
broadcasting pornographic images (the program was
called "Mike Hunt TV"....say it a few times fast if
you don't get it).  "Mike" argued that the airwaves
were public, and he had as much right as the next
person to say and show what he liked on his program. 
Personally, I ended up disagreeing with him: no one I
know watches the informative programming on Public
Access, mostly because it has become known as a home
for pornographic images and lunatic POV rants.  I'd
like it if Wikipedia didn't become Public Access -- if
people didn't worry about clicking a Wikipedia link at
work or in front of their kids (just as people in my
area now don't often click to Public Access to see
what's on....because they fear they know exactly what
will be on).

Are we making a usable encyclopedia, or an experiment
in free speech and democracy?  We seem to keep saying
we're an encyclopedia project.  Well, if we are, I
think we need to ask ourselves how to reach the
broadest possible audience with the most possible
information.  If that's not the goal of an
encyclopedia, I don't know what is.  And it seems to
me that providing linked images provides almost the
same breadth of information, while improving the size
of our audience by a measurably larger amount.

Thanks for taking me seriously -- always makes me feel
better, even when everyone disagrees with me. :-)

James R.

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250