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

Sat Feb 19 14:05:58 UTC 2005

Fred Bauder:

>>The question is whether, after
> > due consideration, objectionable material is to be included as an
> > accepted part of our presentation of knowledge.

Tony Sidaway:

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

While this is clearly a matter of ongoing (i.e. permanent) concern, we are
also not going to have a working definition of 'objectionable', now or
later.

[[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]] is there; [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is
not]] mentions 'Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors'.

The potential of a forked site which contained 90% or more Wiki-en content,
and which would not have to make those disclaimers, is there and growing in
attractiveness with every passing month.  Anyone doing that fork would be
supplying their own operational definition of 'objectionable'; that is
likely to involve self-censorship of some kind, a term I wouldn't accept for
how WP operates.

The operational WP criterion is 'adds to the encyclopedia', and on the whole
this is fine for what we do; its opposite would be more like 'gratuitous',
rather than 'could offend someone'.  It is obvious enough why we can't use
'could offend someone' and still write WP.  I'm not great myself at watching
graphic bits of medical dramas on television; I would make that a reason for
not clicking around pages on surgery, rather than any sort of criterion for
what is there.

Kids and the Internet - well, it's a parental responsibility, like them
crossing the road.

We should not have any 'incitement' at all on WP; that is not about
offending, that is a responsibility as, in effect, a public broadcaster.

There is a bottom line, really, in that those who don't come to WP are
missing out.  The aim anyway is to make WP _more attractive_, rather than
_less unattractive_.

Charles