Perhaps you can send me an email so we can coordinate a convenient time next week (I assume you have my address from my posting details)?

Look forward to speaking!

If your service is really effective, with few or no uncaught porn and few false positives as well, and if Wikipedia were simply to buy your service and install it on a kid-friendly website, that would take care of my objection.

The problem is, as Larry points out, delivery – if Wikipedia were to commit to implement either filtering of the image uploads (which is unlikely) or moderation that would enable users to surf Wikipedia with a safe version that defaults inappropriate images to a hidden state, NetSpark has the technology to enable Wikipedia to accomplish this, using our highly accurate graphics inspection technology and filtering algorithms.

In the meantime, the technology is limited to those networks that have deployed our Web filtering solutions.

I just tweeted to Jimmy Wales myself, challenging him to respond to the fact that solutions are indeed available to address the issue relatively quickly, so am curious to see if he will reply.

Another reason no one else has created a filter is that the problem is relatively unknown to parents and teachers and others who might call for a filter. (But I suspect it’s not unknown to kids who evidently are searching for porn on Wikipedia, considering the popularity of sex-related searches on the site.) But once this becomes public knowledge, the game might change. It is possible that there will be heavy public pressure on Wikipedia to install a filter, and if they don’t they’ll lose both donors and readers in droves.

I never said Wikipedia’s not going to build a filter. I said that they won’t if we don’t organize and hold them responsible for the content they’re promoting as educational for children.

It doesn’t matter whether or not this is Wikipedia’s responsibility. What matters is that they aren’t doing it. So, if you want it, you build it. If you can’t build it, find someone who can. Run a Kickstarter project or something to fund its development. Or lobby NetNanny.

Fight inaction with action. Complaining about inaction — however justified — rarely solves anything.

According to German youth protection laws, Wikimedia content would be illegal on a German server: “A pornographic content on the internet is legal only if technical measures prohibit minors from getting access to the object (AVS = Age Verification System or Adult-Check-System).”

http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/information-in-english,did=33902.html

“We don’t need anyone to tell us what to do.” You sound like a teenager. It’s not a matter of people telling you what to do. It’s merely a matter of being responsive to the needs, yes the needs, of your readership. If you don’t care about that, then you are declaring that you are writing for yourselves and you want to impose your values on the rest of the world. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral and public-minded. Since most parents with children, yes even in Germany, would prefer to have the option of turning on a filter which blocks images and articles for which they are unready, your insistence that they take what they are given whether they like it or not really means that you’re imposing your values on them.

Attitudes like yours explain why I do not show Wikipedia to my six-year-old son and why we subscribe to Britannica instead of using the project I started.