What should we do about Wikipedia’s porn problem?

I want to start a conversation.

I. Problem? What problem?

So, you didn’t know that Wikipedia has a porn problem?

Let me say what I do not mean by “Wikipedia’s porn problem.” I do not mean simply that Wikipedia has a lot of porn. That’s part of the problem, but it’s not even the main problem. I’m 100% OK with porn sites. I defend the right of people to host and view porn online. I don’t even especially mind that Wikipedia has porn. There could be legitimate reasons why an encyclopedia might want to have some “adult content.”

No, the real problem begins when Wikipedia features some of the most disgusting sorts of porn you can imagine, while being heavily used by children. But it’s even more complicated than that, as I’ll explain.

(Note, the following was co-written by me and several other people. I particularly needed their help finding the links.)

Here is the short version:

Wikipedia and other websites of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) host a great deal of pornographic content, as well as other content not appropriate for children. Yet, the Wikimedia Foundation encourages children to use these resources. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and many other high-profile sites have installed optional filters to block adult content from view. I believe the WMF sites should at a minimum install an optional, opt-in filter, as the WMF Board agreed to do [*] in 2011. I understand that the WMF has recently stopped work on the filter and, after a period of community reaction, some Board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Wikipedians, both managers and rank-and-file, apparently do not have enough internal motivation to do the responsible thing for their broad readership.

But even that is too brief. If you really want to appreciate Wikipedia’s porn problem, I’m afraid you’re going to have to read the following.

Here is the longer version:

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and its project communities have recently stopped work on an optional, opt-in filter that the Foundation’s Board approved [*] in 2011. “Opt-in” means the filter would be switched on only for users who choose to turn it on. It would hide certain content behind a warning, and even then, the content would still be accessible to all users. It is accurate to call this proposed filter “weak”.  Nevertheless, after a period of community reaction, some Board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. WMF director Sue Gardner implicitly endorsed their description of the situation at the end of this discussion [*] (at “I wish we could’ve talked about the image filter”).

Yet, Wikipedia and its image and file archive, Wikimedia Commons, host an enormous and rapidly growing amount of pornographic content. This includes (or did include, when this petition was drafted):

WARNING, THE FOLLOWING ARE EXTREMELY EXPLICIT
• articles illustrated with pornographic videos (“convent pornography” [*], “The Good Old Naughty Days” [*], “A Free Ride” [*])
• videos of male masturbation [*] and of ejaculation in two [*] formats [*]; pictures as well: ejaculation [*]
• illustrated articles about various extreme and fetishistic topics (cock and ball torture [*]hogtie bondage [*]fisting [*]autofellatio [*]pearl necklace [*]hentai [*])
• photo categories for the “sexual penetrative use of cucumbers” [*] and other vegetables, practices like scrotum inflation[*], pictures about penis torture [*]
(Note, [*] indicate links to archived versions of pages, for reference in case these pages are edited.) Some searches produce unexpected results [*]. For example, an image search for “male human” [*] in the “Simple Wikipedia” (touted as a children’s version: “The Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone! That includes children and adults who are learning English”) shows dozens upon dozens of pornographic and exhibitionist images. Almost all the most frequently viewed media files on Wikimedia servers [*] are sexually explicit files, which puts the lie to the oft-repeated claim that pornography is rarely viewed on Wikipedia.

Many parents and teachers are neither aware of the adult content on Wikipedia sites, nor that it is accessible to school-age students, nor that this content is in fact quite popular.

With so much adult content, so often accessed, you might think that Wikipedia is adults-only, and that children don’t use it. But of course, they do. We are told that today’s children are “Generation Z” who get much of their information online. Even pre-teen children are heavy users of Wikipedia, which is often ranked in the top five of all websites in terms of traffic. In fact, 25% of the contributors to Wikipedia are under the age of 18, according to a 2010 survey, and about 12% of both readers and contributors said they had only a primary education.

Youth readership is something that the Wikimedia Foundation appears to condone, at the very least. For example, Jimmy Wales has addressed audiences of school children about Wikipedia, and one of their Wikipedian in Residence programs is at the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis [*]. Wales expressed a common attitude about children’s use of Wikipedia in an interview in which he said that if “a 10-year-old is writing a little short paper for class, and they want to say that they got some information from Wikipedia, I think we should be just glad that the kid’s writing and actually thinking about giving credit — due credit — to people who have helped. And I think that’s wonderful.” (Libertyfund.org, at the 20:19 mark; cf. this BBC story)

If it is meant to be used with children, you might wonder whether Wikipedia and its sister projects really intend for their service to include pornography. Of that, there is no doubt. Wikipedia declares officially that it is “not censored” [*] (originally, this was labeled [*] “Wikipedia is not censored for children”) and its official policy page [*] on “offensive material” also makes it clear that pornography is permitted. To learn about the attitudes of many Wikipedians in the trenches, see the “Wikipedia:Pornography” [*] page and follow the links, or just try this search.

Moreover, in case there were any doubt, the Wikipedia community actively permits children to edit such content. The issue came up last year when a user who said he was 13 years old joined a Wikipedia volunteer group, WikiProject Pornography [*]. This raised eyebrows; someone proposed to restrict editing of articles about pornography to adults. Wikipedians discussed the matter at great length, took a vote, and a solid majority rejected the proposal [*].

This might look like a liberals vs. conservatives issue, at first glance; but I believe it is nonpartisan, more of an adolescent-minded-young-men vs. grownups-with-children issue. Nobody thinks of Google as being conservative just because they have SafeSearch (which is opt-out, i.e., turned on by default).

The WMF is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization with an educational mission. The presence of enormous amounts of unfiltered adult content, the “educational” purpose of which is questionable for anyone, directly conflicts with the goal of supporting the education of children.

That is Wikipedia’s porn problem.

II. Is inaction acceptable?

The official Wikipedia position on this problem appears to be: do nothing, and heap scorn upon anyone who suggests that something needs to be done. That also seems to suit many techno-libertarians, especially young males without children, who are the most enthusiastic consumers of porn, and who often dominate conversations about Internet policy.

I think inaction will prove unacceptable to most parents. At the very least there should be a reliable filter available, which parents might turn on if their younger children are using Wikipedia. I know that I would use it with my 6-year-old; then I might let him look at Wikipedia, if it were reliable. It’s hard to look over your children’s shoulder every moment they’re online. Wikipedians often glibly advise parents to do just this: if Junior is using Wikipedia to view porn and learn all about creative sexual fetishes, it’s your fault. You should be monitoring more closely. This obviously doesn’t wash, when it is well within Wikipedia’s power simply to add a filter that parents could turn on.

It is also unacceptable for most teachers and school district technology directors. How, really, can you defend giving kids access to a website with so much porn, when it is so obviously counter to CIPA rules, and when their parents would in many cases object (if they knew of the problem)?

What about you? If you agree, I’m going to make it easy for you to comment. I know that some Wikipedians might want to respond in a very hostile fashion–I’m no stranger to such disputes, myself–and this would put off a lot of people from commenting. But since this is my blog, happily, I can make up the rules, and so I will. I particularly encourage participation by parents, teachers, and women generally. I would especially like to hear from people who support the idea that Wikipedia tackle this problem. If you are opposed, that’s fine, but I will post your contribution only if you are polite and well-reasoned. I will not post anything that is personally insulting, and I also reserve the right not to post “flame bait” and merely silly or stupid remarks (and on such matters, my judgment is final). I will also pull the plug on any opponents who attempt to dominate the conversation. We already know there will be significant opposition, namely, from some Wikipedians and some of Wikipedia’s supporters. The purpose of this post is to get people talking about whether Wikipedia should be doing something about this problem.

III. What should be done?

There are a few things we might do.

First, we might blog, tweet, and post on Facebook about the problem. For better or worse, we’re all connected now, and getting the word out there is simply a matter of using social media. One person’s comment won’t amount to much–even this one won’t, probably. But a lot of people together can create a groundswell of support. So add your voice.

Second, we might contact leading Wikipedians, including Sue Gardner and other members of the WMF Board of Trustees. And don’t forget the many leading members of the Wikipedia project itself, such as the “checkusers” and the active administrators. If these people hear from readers not in the community, it can really make a difference. If enough of us write, Wikipedians might finally get the idea that there are a lot of readers out there who want a voice in determining what options are available to users.

A few months ago, I repeatedly (just to be sure) mailed Wikimedia chief Sue Gardner about Wikipedia’s porn problem. In 2010, she and I had a very productive and polite exchange, by both email and phone, about these issues. But recently, she has not responded. That was disappointing, but I believe I understand. My guess–it is only a guess, and I will correct this if I learn differently–is that Sue has been beaten down by her dysfunctional community. She has given up. I think she wants a filter installed, but it is politically impossible, and she fears for her job if she takes a hard-line stand. That’s my guess. If I am right, then external pressure will wake up the Wikipedia community and make it easier for her to insist that the community do the right thing.

Third, talk to the press. If you know reporters, or people who have lots of followers online, ask them to report about this story. It’s a big story. Why isn’t it big news that Wikipedia has given up its 2011 commitment to install a porn filter? Surely it is. It’s time to ask the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as the leading Wikipedians, some hard questions. (And reporters, do be sure to ask questions of leading Wikipedians; I say that because the WMF does not control Wikipedia or Commons. If they did, they would be legally liable for a lot more than they are now. The people really making the decision, arguably, are the adolescent-minded Wikipedia admins who see nothing wrong with the current situation–not necessarily WMF employees.)

The fourth option is the “nuclear” option: we might boycott Wikipedia. Now, I’m not calling for a boycott–yet. If anything, I’d like to kick off a public discussion about whether we should boycott Wikipedia. I have been talking about this with some online acquaintances, and I am honestly torn. I don’t want this to be a mere publicity stunt: I want to call for a boycott only if it could possibly have a positive effect. I also don’t want to call for a boycott if I don’t know that there will be a significant groundswell of popular support. And I don’t want this to be about me. I want it to be all about making Wikipedia more responsibly managed and more useful for children–kids are some of its most important users, even if Wikipedians loudly insist that it is not “censored for children.”

But if Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation do not take decisive action between now and end-of-year fundraising time, I might very well call for a boycott. For now, let’s get the word out, start a conversation, and see if we can make a difference without taking such drastic action.

Please feel free to repost this online.

UPDATE: in a response to me, Jimmy Wales has reiterated his support for a Wikipedia porn filter. But this wouldn’t be the first time Jimbo has supported a Wikipedia proposal that never saw the light of day. Let’s make him put his money where his mouth is.

UPDATE 2: I made a video vignette, “Does Wikipedia have a porn problem? Dad investigates.


by

Posted

in

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

134 responses to “What should we do about Wikipedia’s porn problem?”

  1. H S Boynton

    There has to be a filter and these problems have to be publicized. Children can be harmed by exposure to pornographic images. Children have a right to come to terms with their own sexuality as they age and it becomes a natural part of their identity. Exposing young children and young adolescents to porn and even bestiality is harmful. I have supervised young teens on the internet and there is no way to watch every keystroke while maintaining a healthy parental relationship. No young teen should be administering or editing pornographic content as a volunteer for Wikipedia. It is outrageous. I have worked as a victim advocate at a sexual assault center including for victims who were children. Exposing children to pornographic images has been used by many child sex abusers as a form of grooming their victims. Putting the Wikipedia stamp of approval on facilitating children’s exposure to porn is the wrong direction for combating child sexual abuse. The problems listed require broad publicity to force Wikipedia to do what’s right and protect children.

    1. I agree entirely, of course. The question, however, is how to publicize these problems. Back in 2006 or so, when I first started learning about the growing porn on Wikipedia, I thought it was only a matter of time before the problem was common knowledge and subject of a scandal. There have been a few related scandals and incidents–e.g., the “Virgin Killer” album cover and the many drawings of child porn, to take two examples–but, for some reason, it never really becomes big news, news outside the tech/Internet sphere. I suspect that the producers of the major networks simply aren’t aware of the problem as I’ve stated it.

      1. Binet

        When I discovered the controvery about Martin Van Maele plates posted on Wikimedia commons, I was first amazed. I just could not believe what I had read as these plates are available on the web for years and you can find them on dozens of sites, most of them not focused on pedophilia but from prestigious auction houses. Of course, everybody will agree that these images are not for children and I will not enter in a debate with you in a debate about the dark sides of Wikipedia. I am more concerned about some pages written clearly by the pharmaceutical industry promoting junk drugs. Wikipedia is simply a convenient entry point to knowledge, not knowledge itself, like any other encyclopedia. If you look at the French page on Martin Van Maele, you will see that the information is grossly accurate but the English counterpart is simply garbage.
        The real problem with these plates is not that they do not represent real people (actually one does) but that they do heavily criticize real situations around 1900 in the French society. The worst one showing a murderer leaving a rape scene alludes to the most famous criminal affair of the time and obviously, the artist did not want to celebrate the perpetrator. So yes, Wikimedia may have a problem with a filter but the main issue is that if you want to post a work of art, just give a minimum of comments about it.

  2. L. deNasostorto

    I was initially baffled concerning Wikipedia’s resistance to installing content filters – of course, I’m a person who prizes reason, so I expect that others do too.

    I suppose the situation is not unlike that of the extreme gun-lobbyists who resist any safeguards (even those that are perfectly sane and logical) as bullying interference.

    I am generally against censorship, but again, I am reasonable about it. When there is an obvious danger to children, I think a line has been crossed. It would seem that Wikipedia has failed to police itself and so some outside influence must be applied.

    1. That’s pretty much how I feel, anyway.

  3. For starters, I will be covering this discussion in a news article on Examiner.com. My work has been viewed over 60,000 times, so the very least I can do is help increase awareness of the problem.

    1. Greg, that sounds great. I look forward to it!

  4. Please tweet about this problem. Here are some tweets I just posted:

    Wikimedia Commons has whole categories devoted to “penetrative use” of vegetables; but it doesn’t have a filter: https://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/

    Wikipedia has articles devoted to old pornographic films–with extensive clips–but it has no filter: https://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/

    Wikimedia Commons STILL proudly hosts drawings of child rape–but unlike Google & Flickr, it does not have a filter: https://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/

    Teachers, who are reading these tweets: is this getting through? When are you going to help get the word out?

  5. I support your raising awareness of this. I am, however, cautious about getting directly involved in the Wiki filter issue as it may be fraught with legal matters about which I know too little.

    We do not talk enough about the more general problem of the prevalence and high-visibility of pornography which has arrived with the internet. I entirely agree with you about allowing pornography for consenting adults. And I agree with you that those who do not see the problem of the wider dissemination of pornography as something that might badly affect children are mostly those who do not have children or are disconnected from them.

  6. Andreas Kolbe

    Well said. Another aspect of this situation is that Wikimedia contributors may habitually be violating 18 USC 2257 record-keeping requirements for images of sexually explicit conduct, and be doing so with the Wikimedia Foundation’s tacit approval.

    US law requires all secondary producers of such images to keep written records of the age, identity and consent of all models shown performing sexually explicit acts. (A “secondary producer” is defined by law as including anyone who adds such an image to a website, or manages the sexually explicit content of a website – in other words, Wikimedia contributors.)

    At Wikimedia though, anyone is able to upload sexual images anonymously, and can then immediately add them as illustrations to Wikipedia articles on sexual practices. No one is asked whether they have the necessary documentation, whether performers are overage, have consented to the upload, etc.

    For an ongoing discussion of the legal implications, including quotes from relevant legal texts, see

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)&oldid=3789595#Implications_of_2257_record_keeping_requirements_for_editors.3F

    Wikimedia Commons has had its share of “revenge porn” uploads – people, often teenagers, uploading sexually explicit images of their former partners. Any time you see a sexually explicit image in Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, there is a real chance that the person shown is a minor and/or has never consented to the use of their image. Is this how a reputable educational work should be illustrated?

    Should we donate money to a charitable foundation that tolerates such conduct among its volunteer base?

    Wikimedia should get its house in order before asking the public for the next round of donations.

  7. bob

    when i was a kid, all we has was looking up swear words in the dictionary.

    1. And wasn’t that a thrill. I remember!

    2. Mmx

      I remember going straight to a given page of the anatomy book as soon as I received it. Hint: it was not the pancreas.

      But, intentional seeking of pornography cannot be prevented – if an adolescent wants internet porn, he will find it. But so was I when I was 13.

      What must be done is prevent accidental exposition.

      Also I think this must be done for wikipedia’s own sake – there is enough material to be censored by many western countries and practically all eastern ones (with some definition of western and eastern which is not probably politically correct but I can’t find better terms now).

  8. […] Jimmy Wales reiterates support for Wikipedia porn filter Print PDF Over on Twitter, I’ve been having the first conversation, of sorts, I’ve had in years with Jimmy Wales. First, I wrote (pointing to my post, “What should we do about Wikipedia’s porn problem?“): […]

  9. […] Ich crossposte hier einen Input in eine Debatte, in die ich mich einmal kurz selbst eingeschaltet hatte (und schnell wieder raus geschaltet) und die ich für hoffnungslos hielt. Aber vielleicht gibt es ja doch eine Möglichkeit, einzuwirken und an vermeintlich nichtdiskutierbaren Punkten zu diskutieren… From Larry Sanger’s blog: […]

  10. Lisa

    I am extremely morally opposed to all forms of pornography. I believe that its effects on men, women, and children are very harmful in multiple ways, especially with regard to interpersonal relationships. Allowing pornographic content to remain so easily accessible to anyone with access to the internet is wrong. I’m aware that there are individuals who seek out such content, but I feel they should respect the desire of those who wish to avoid it. From this article it sounds as if it’s easy to stumble upon porn while looking for something else on Wikipedia. As a mother it makes me feel very anxious for my children and other children who frequently use the internet. I am very strongly in support of actions taken to help Wikipedia’s porn problem and to provide necessary protection for our children as well as all Wikipedia users who wish to avoid such explicit content. I think installing some sort of filter is very important. I would go so far as to say I wouldn’t allow internet use in my home knowing that such content was so easily accessible and available without any sort of option for restraint.

    1. Lisa, thanks for the reply. I might not agree with everything you say, but I think Wikipedia should support how you want to use it, too.

    2. MS

      I agree, Lisa. Fresh Air had an interesting interview with the creator of “Girls,” a television series, in which the creator explained that young men nowadays frequently have distorted ideas about sexual conduct because of exposure to modern pornography.

      To protect your children, I recommend putting the family computer in a high traffic part of the house and installing the free software Windows Live Family Safety (or something similar).

      Larry, thank you for bringing this problem to my attention.

      I looked you up on wikipedia! And found the page you wrote about yourself. Very helpful. I didn’t know about citizendium! I think you should add that site to the “What should be done?” section.

      I will now be replacing wikipedia with citizendium on my ten-year-old’s whitelist (list of sites he is allowed to visit).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *