LarrySanger.org

Advice for the Wikimedia Foundation (not for Wikipedia!)

Since before I left Wikipedia, even before I proposed the old Sifter project in 2002, Wikipedians have talked about a method of using experts to rate, or approve, or review versions of Wikipedia articles (cf. this Slate interview).  Similarly, some of the cooler heads both inside and outside Wikipedia have wished that Wikipedians would tag their copious amounts of porn and other child-unfriendly content, so that pages containing that content could be efficiently blocked by filters.  (Speaking as a father of two, I now actually think about such things.)

Of course, the problem with all such sensible suggestions is that the Wikipedia community is not very sensible.  As anyone familiar with the community knows, if such things are left up to Wikipedians themselves, they will never happen.  They will have to be done independently.

But it occurred to me that there is no reason whatsoever that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) could not do these things independently of Wikipedia.  They could be other WMF projects, like Wikimedia Commons, Wikibooks, and so forth, but scrupulously independent of Wikipedia itself.  I call on the WMF’s Executive Director, Sue Gardner, to investigate the viability of these and other such independent projects personally, and not just leave them to “Wikimedia Strategy” groups such as this one.

Let me try to put this suggestion into perspective.  For a long time, whenever anybody suggested expert review, porn labelling, or other obviously good ideas, there was always one big argument-stopper: the community would never stand for it.  They can’t be moved.  You can persuade all the people you like outside the project, you can raise a ruckus in the media, but the Wikipedia community just won’t go for it — period.

The WMF showed that it could work independently of the Wikipedia community when it hired someone to write a report of recommendations of how to deal with “controversial content.”  Besides, Wikipedia and the WMF are both constantly saying that the Foundation does not control editorial issues.  If they are independent entities, then what, really, is stopping the WMF from starting credible projects to do expert labelling and independent labelling of porn (and other images inappropiate for children)?  Theoretically, they don’t have to answer to the Wikipedia community in order to start such projects.  And we can start blaming the WMF itself, and its management, if such projects are not started, because it is well within their power and authority to do so.

by

Larry Sanger

“Internet Knowledge Organizer.” Currently President of the Knowledge Standards Foundation, started Wikipedia and various other educational and reference sites. Ph.D., Philosophy, Ohio State, 2000. [read more]

Posted

in

Comments

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

3 responses to “Advice for the Wikimedia Foundation (not for Wikipedia!)”

  1. Seth Finkelstein

    Sigh … “beginner mind”. Every so often, I think of writing a book about what I’ve learned regarding anti-censorship activism. But then, I remind myself, nobody would read it. So it wouldn’t do any good.

    Does there exist a reasonable set of circumstances where you would accept a report which said “No – we’ve investigated it, and it’s not viable”? If there isn’t, then, what’s the point of asking for a report?

    Reply
  2. Larry Sanger

    Hi, Seth. Your response is quite unclear. I’m not sure, but you seem to be saying, or assuming, that what I’m proposing (labelling the porn as such, and giving experts an organized way to review WP articles) constitutes censorship. Of course it’s not. And–a report on what? We’ve investigated what, and what’s not viable? Did the consultant’s report to the WMF say that labelling porn was not viable? I frankly forget what it said on the subject. Also, Seth, speaking of “censorship,” I’m choosing to interpret your cryptic remark, “beginner mind,” as being an admission of being a beginner on your own part; I’m not going to accept personal abuse (of me, or anyone else) on this blog. I wouldn’t call this censorship, however, but moderation on my part and politeness on yours.

    Reply
  3. Seth Finkelstein

    Sigh, Larry, you’re correct, I wasn’t clear, my ennui on the matter was evident. Let’s put it this way – labeling is often discussed as part of anti-censorship activism, since SOME FORMS (not every implementation, not an intrinsic category) are part of censorship systems. Can we stipulate that, without having a long debate about the meaning of the word “censorship”?

    Part of the material I have in mind for a book about my experiences, is the way certain proposals are endlessly re-proposed by people without much background in the area (I don’t consider “beginner mind” to be “personal abuse” – it’s certainly a criticism, but I’d say, a fair one – personal, yes, abuse, no). The labeling idea is frequently encountered. What is also frequently encountered – and you may consider this personal, though I think it’s more general applicability – is the proposer simply will not engage the extensive existing knowledge of the difficulties of the topic, but adamantly insists his or her idea is the solution, if everyone else would just recognize that their proposal is what should be done.

    In my former activist state, I spent a huge amount of time trying to explain to various somewhat prominent people why such proposals were flawed. They never listened, and it never did me any good. Either way – that I’m bad at explaining, or they weren’t open to being wrong – the outcome was the same. So I shouldn’t get-into-it, sorry.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Log in