On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:09:16 -0500, Jim Trodel <trodel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The question is not one of Censorship but of Editorial
Control and are
the photos, etc helping us meet our mission - which is to become an
trusted encyclopedic source of information.
Two thoughts:
1) The assumption that adults would not be offended by seeing this
photo inline is naive - just because I want to learn about something
doesn't mean I want to see it performed (whether that be autofellatio
or beheadings or whatever) - in fact IMHO wanting to learn about
something by going to an encylopedia should imply that a scholarly or
educational view of the subject is desired - for a Mass Media
interpretation - one would just use google (or their favorite search
engine). And if one really wanted to see it - use an image search.
2) Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type.
I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at
my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the
word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them
at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may
have wanted one).
=Summary=
I have been using wikipedia for some time (though I only recently
started actively editing) and am concerned that the mission to provide
a repository of generally accessible information is being changed so
that it won't be generally acceptable (and thus not accessible
either). The great thing about a web based encyclopedia is that with
one click can provide additional information about a subject (or see a
picture of it, etc) for those that want it. These arguments about
using your browser correctly, accusations of censorship, etc miss the
point and the mission of wikipedia.
Like James, I have been recommeding wikipedia to many (though in my
case it is adults aged 30-70 with most in the 50-70 range*). If we
can't come to a concensus that includes a 1) generally acceptable
standard with 2) links to the additional (possibly offensive
material), I won't be able to keep making that recommendation.
==QUESTION==
Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material
offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a
link" not considered a reasonable?
Jim (trodel(a)gmail.com) [[User:Trödel]]
*These are generally intelligent people who usually already have a
computer but they have heard of spyware, viruses, porn, etc. and are
not sure they want to make the transition to "always on" access to the
internet. "Won't people be able to snoop into my computer?" is a
typical question. Currently, I setup firefox, install spyware
protection software, install a web-meeting software so if they have a
problem they can call me and I can help, and setup bookmarks based on
their interest, which currently always include wikipedia.
> "Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what
> I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community
> it will display explicit photos of 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). You can
> call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the
> names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will
> let you), but those are the cold hard facts."
>
> I agree with these sentiments, James.
>
Is anyone listening? I do not understand why some do not seem to
accept the perfectly sensible points expressed above.
I think people are losing sight of the fact that the more involved
Wikipedians, and more intensive Internet users generally, are *not*
representative of the real world. (If our content does indeed reflect
the majority of Wikipedians, rather than a sizable minority or vocal
minority)
We *do* need to moderate/self-censor, and not to our own standards,
but with a view as to what the general reading public expects.
And we damn well have to do that whether we agree with the "general
public" or "mainstream" or whatever you want to call the "reasonable
common denominator" (I say this without intending to suggest that
perhaps a majority of Wikipedians don't agree with such views).
Neither is there need to start arguing about the fact that what's
acceptable to some isn't acceptable to others. By and large, as
regards the controversial stuff that has been discussed, it's damn
well obvious what the majority of the reading public will expect/want.
So it comes down to some Wikipedians acting against their own
viewpoints if we wish to continue to provide an encyclopaedia that is
suitable for general access.
Zoney
P.S. By all means I will switch to a more moderated fork if that
situation ever does arise. I consider some of the current
controversies quite unacceptable.
Also re: Vandalism. Yes that's not our fault. But again I say it's
quite unacceptable to allow quite so catastrophic IMAGE vandalism. I'm
not offering a solution unfortunately, but I do not believe that means
I can't express how big an impact this problem has.
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...