[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is not presently classroom-safe

Sat Feb 19 14:00:37 UTC 2005

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Yes.  I think we should tackle this question face-on.
>
Well said.

>  I won't lose any
>sleep, or leave the project, or have a hissy fit, if Wikipedia excludes
>objectionable material, because Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advancing my
>point of view.
>  
>
Neither would I if the opposite occurred, but I'd be quite disappointed 
and skeptical of Wikipedia's future prospects.

>But at present I think I'm seeing a bifurcation--one which I've tried to
>illustrate in recent emails.  Wikipedia at present does not exclude
>encyclopedic descriptions of, even legally permissible illustrations of,
>objectionable material, including Autofellatio
>
It's not the nudity I'm objecting to; it's that the image used seemed 
far too shocking and more fitting for a site like Goatse or Tubgirl; we 
need to have some editorial standards, and they need to be applied to 
images like this too. I don't buy the argument that "it demonstrates 
autofellatio is possible"; why is text so unworthy of readers' trust? 
Photos are just as easily susceptible to manipulation. Otherwise I could 
upload a picture of "Julia Roberts" blowjobbing a (presumably) black 
man, and use it as evidence of her sexual activities on [[Julia 
Roberts]]. After all, it's a picture, so it must be true, no?

Of course, I understand that is not necessarily Tony's or Christiaan's 
position, but it is quite close to what they seem to be pointing out. 
The image adds to the article of course, but I don't think the benefits 
of inlining it outweigh the costs.

As I've said before, the rationale doesn't have to make sense. People 
will see it and start muttering about Wikipedia. Images strike the mind 
much stronger than text, more so lifelike depictions. We don't need any 
black-and-white guidelines for this, IMO; it's just bloody common sense. 
If you think an image will offend a substantial amount of people, link 
it instead of inlining, or bring up the issue on the talk page.

What I find difficult to accept is the argument that we should never 
ever link to images because it would inconvenience the group of people 
who desire to view the image with the article. I could understand this 
once we get a technical solution in place, but for now, shock images 
like the one formerly at [[Autofellatio]] greatly disturb me, because 
it's just...disconcerting to have it flashed into your face in the 
middle of the article. I wasn't offended, but I was distracted from the 
article.

If you start thinking like the average internet user (i.e. those 
affluent middle class people who got so riled up about the Super Bowl 
last year), it's a no-brainer to realise that if *I* was distracted, 
they would be infuriated. It doesn't matter that the text was even more 
graphic and disturbing; a picture speaks a thousand words, and they can 
go either way.

I don't really buy the argument we should be forcing upon users our 
choice of web browser and/or our choice of software either. I don't care 
how bloody good Firefox is, we're not supposed to respond to a complaint 
about offensive images with, "Well, if you don't want to be offended, 
you will need Mozilla Firefox, this web browser, to replace Internet 
Explorer, and an add-on to it called AdBlock. Come, I'll walk you 
through it". Why not? First of all, POV pushing; about a year ago, the 
idea of promoting Firefox with a small logo on the main page was vetoed 
by community discussion. Secondly, the idea of the web is to make things 
accessible to people easily.

It really sickens me to hear the kind of logic used to push the idea of 
selling people on browsers other than IE via Wikipedia. That kind of 
logic is exactly the same webmasters and companies who ignore web 
standards use when Firefox or Opera users complain to them. Until all 
major browsers (perhaps defined as those with more than 5% market share) 
support the filtering of images on a per individual (not server) basis, 
it is our responsibility for ensuring users don't get too pissed off by 
our site.

Of course I don't really favour linking either; I'm really pushing 
strongly for a technical solution akin to the ones I proposed earlier. 
But until we get that sort of capability, we *MUST* err on the side of 
caution. This is not the issue of an image like a Swastika (if you 
objected to displaying it for educational purposes, most people would 
laugh at you; the reason, I know not. People are strange.) or 
caterpillars (while there are a few people out there disgusted by them, 
again, objecting to the picture of a caterpillar displayed for 
educational purposes would have ridicule heaped on you. Objecting to a 
picture of a man fellating himself? That's a different case...).

> and Lolicon, and at present
>we inline even extremely objectionable images such as a picture of an
>abused child holding a teddy bear with a dildo.
>
Firstly, it's an illustration. Secondly, it's not really immediately 
obvious. Thirdly, it does not distract my eyes from the body of the 
text. While perhaps there would be less laughter if you objected to it 
this time, there would still be quite a bit, simply because...? I don't 
know. Probably a combination of the three factors I mentioned, but for a 
lot of people, it's just not that offensive. Perverted, yes, but not 
shockingly offensive like the autofellatio image.

>We're entering the mainstream, newspapers are starting to cite Wikipedia
>articles as background in their stories.  The question of what content is
>acceptable on Wikipedia is very important.  Whatever we choose will affect
>the way in which our project is perceived by the public.
>
100% agreement with you there.

>  In its present
>form Wikipedia will very soon gain some powerful enemies--this is
>unavoidable even if we remove or severely restrict the display of all
>objectionable images, because on present form it appears that there is no
>consensus to delete articles that will make Wikipedia unacceptable for use
>by children.
>  
>
Of course. However, this group would be far larger if we made it a 
common practice of displaying shockingly offensive images _by default_. 
By not doing so, we limit the number of our enemies; they are far more 
likely to be right-wing wackos in a small number. If we commonly threw 
in pictures resembling porno left and right, on the other hand, our 
enemies would begin drawing members from the centre-right, and that is 
quite a sizeable group.

>It's not my concern so much which decisions are made, so much as that the
>decision made should be made with open eyes.  Not by the editors, but by
>Jimbo and the Board, who own and ultimately take responsibility for this
>project.
>  
>
I'm not sure if I agree with you there. While I have a distaste for 
letting people other than the community of editors make editorial 
decisions, perhaps they could issue a "recommendation" we could elect to 
follow?

>If Jimbo does not have an appetite for a fight with the religious right of
>his country, now is the time to consider toning down Wikipedia content. 
>Only the board could enforce such a decision.
>  
>
I'm not all too sure. If the sysops rebelled, the board couldn't enforce 
the decision without forcibly closing down the website and destroying 
the community. No, the community has to have some measure of influence, 
even if it doesn't have a full say in the final decision.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])