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

Sun Feb 20 12:39:40 UTC 2005

John Lee said:
>>
>>
> 40% of *editors*. Not readers. Big difference. People like us who have
> so much time to spend on an online "open source" encyclopedia probably
> have far more liberal mind sets than average folk.

We take votes to try to gauge consensus of *editors*.  We should take into
account the sensibilities of readers, but it would be wrong to base
decisions on the presumed opinions of people who have not expressed any.
> I do not want to have to block
> ordinary images from Wikipedia just not to have shock images thrown in
> my face.

Nor do I.  There should not be shock images on Wikipedia.  All images
should be there solely because they appropriately illustrate an article.
> our readership is generally American.

So are our editors, but a minute ago you were using their liberal cultural
bias as a reason to ignore the 40% minority who favored inlining a
potentially objectionable image.  Now you seem to want to use the
conservative cultural bias of some Americans who complained about the
half-time entertainment in a televised football game as an argument for
linking it.
> If we were to link
> instead  of inline an image, I doubt the "non-offended" would complain,
> and if  they did, it would be hardly as much as the furore from the
> other side  were we to carry the image inline.

I agree completely.  But I still don't think we should be making such
content decisions on the basis of American public's problems with nipples.
 Presumably those who voted in the way the did were fully aware of the
Janet Jackson incident but felt that comparisons between an article on
Autofellatio and an annual televised football final traditionally watched
by families as a group were inappropriate.

>>
> I spent four or five years of my life using IE and I've never run
> across  the option to block images on an individual basis.

I found it in about thirty second on Internet options.  Now pages download
images as placeholders and each image can be displayed or hidden at will.>>
> I think it's just cultural. Europe and Australia have always been far
> more open to these things than America and Asia. But still, I would
> laugh if somebody were to tell me, "Hey, John, that encyclopedia's a
> bunch of rubbish. Don't you know they have pictures of caterpillars in
> the open for all to see? How disgusting!"

Ah.  I think we have crossed wires somewhere. I thought you were referring
to the Lolicon image.

>>>
>>
>>*I* don't see anybody laughing, John.  Also I doubt that you would find
>>the average person to be more shocked by a man sucking his own penis
>>than an eroticised little girl holding a teddy with a huge dildo.
>>
>>
> There's a big difference: The former is a full-blown photograph with
> vivid colours. The latter is an illustration. Technically, both are
> equally disgusting, but in the real world where people's emotions don't
>  make sense, one is more offensive than the other.

I think we differ on which one is more offensive.  I'd be very surprised
if more people agreed with you than with me.

>
>>>Of course. However, this group would be far larger if we made it a
>>>common practice of displaying shockingly offensive images _by
>>>default_.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Which we do.
>>
>>
> Which we shouldn't.
>

Possibly not.

>>
>>
> I am not arguing for toning down our encyclopedia for educational use.
> I  am arguing for doing something to at least maintain some of our
> reputation. Text has far less impact than a photograph.

Yes.  We're probably arguing to cross purposes a bit.