LarrySanger.org

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

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!

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

  1. Rush

    Children who look at this stuff on Wikipedia are SEARCHING FOR IT. They aren’t randomly finding themselves on a page about ejaculating. If it’s not Wikipedia then it’s some other site that they will be on. If you want to filter porn on your computer then you should invest in a good web proxy that can do that.

    It’s nice to have an abundance of knowledge about anything readily at hand. Defaulting to a PG version of wikipedia will be a nuisance for the majority of users. One of your examples – hogtie bondage – I was looking at just two weeks ago when doing research on the 50 shades of grey craze. The picture on that page adds to my knowledge and understanding. If I had to go through the extra effort to view the image then Wikipedia becomes less of a resource and something I would come to avoid.

    Reply
    1. Natasha Brown

      It’s not true. I didn’t search for it and still I have found it. I was shocked. Have a look at this; click on “Show” after “Discussion winding down” on the pink line to see the discussion on Jimmy Walles’s page of 19:32, 27 January 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_95#The_animated_gif_file_of_a_man_mastrubating_is_in_a_public_domain._Do_we_need_it_in_public_domain.3F I am still “recovering” 🙁

      Reply
  2. Jak Wo

    Wikipedia is the educatore and teacher of the generation Z and Y and it is know that those generation are very able to find anything they want to know. It was always and will always be the job of a teacher to provide students with the rigth information at the right time. I in general think a filter is maybe the wrong approach because there is way to say things right even if those things are highly critical to be exposed for especially minors, but the problem is not that those things are around the problem is how we are talking about them. We dont need a filter we need the right language to explain things understandable with out making the relevance or the context of a subject fals. A filter will never stop a internet native from anything. Especially porn or porn like material is for a older generation something highly inapropriate but such subjects are a part of the generation if we like it or not. Those things are everywhere and we dont have to understand why but I think it will be a problem to block or filter subjects which are in the middle of the young generation.

    Reply
  3. Oliver Koslowski

    Why are we rehashing a discussion that we already had after the ‘referendum’? The reason that the board members don’t feel much motivation to get engaged with filters is the huge resistance they were suddenly facing. Even people who agreed to the general idea of having filters faced the problem of getting those installed in practical manner. The approach outlined in the ‘referendum’ clearly couldn’t work. And there is no obvious way to deal with the fact that virtually everything worthwhile in Wikimedia projects is done (and has to be done) by volunteers. And it’s hard to find volunteers who would be willing to tag, annotate or do whatever else it takes to implement the input you need for a filter. There are more worthwhile things to do, and getting into edit wars over a thing that the people contributing to Wikimedia projects don’t really want all that badly.

    And going through all this hassle while sites like Porntubes or even Google’s image search yield more smut that Commons and other Wikimedia projects ever will seems utterly pointless to me.

    All this has been discussed at length and very bitterly so. Both sides made very good arguments, and not even the pro-filter side could come up with a solution that could be implemented with reasonable effort. Ignoring this discussion and the whole ‘White Paperbag’ movement that we’ve seen in various projects after the ‘referendum’ is a rather odd move.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Who do you mean by “we”? The people who are now expressing shock and outrage at Wikipedia’s patent irresponsibility weren’t included. I know the sort of sorry excuse for dialogue that goes on when Wikipedians take up serious issues. I’m not impressed.

      Believe me, you would not lack for porn marker-uppers if the filter existed.

      Reply
    2. Natasha Brown

      I want an apology from Wikipedia for the fact that I had to face the images. I didn’t want to face them but I did. Is it too much? I am waiting for a few month now.

      Thank you for telling me that you took part in the “discussion”! – Can I have my appology from you? It will be a start!

      Do you think that it is right that I have to face the images like this without any warning? Do you think it’s right? Do you call it “charity”? – It doesn’t feel like it. I am still very much hurt.

      Reply
  4. Richard

    I’m male and 24 so not really the audience you especially want to hear from. I think that a porn filter is of course a good thing. I never really had a problem myself, but explicit content doesn’t bother me, I just click the next link and hope it’s what I was looking for.
    However I don’t understand why there isn’t a user who has programmed such a filter option. There are so many users, surely there must be some with time and skill.
    Also you’re not very clear if the filtered out pages would be chosen automaticly or if every wikipedia can tag pages for their filter only. I would prefer the latter, because this should make the programming easier and it stays democratic (instead of a few who decide the filtered words), and probably is more accurate.
    So if someone could write the filter, and leading members of the foundation excuse is they haven’t get around to do it, then the problem seems solved.

    I can’t come around to add a lit but:
    But parents are actually responsible for what their children do on the internet, especially when it offers an indirect chat platform with adults through discussions. However Wikipedia shouldn’t advertise themselves as child-friendly without a filter.

    Reply
  5. Michael Lechowski

    Before reading your post, I was not actually aware of the Wikipedia Porn Problem.
    My impression is that a lot of the debate and the ill feelings that go along with it are rooted in (possibly willful) misunderstanding or misinterpreting terms. I am not saying that everything boils donw to semantics, but it certainly is a factor. It seems that the term “filter” alone generates opposition in that it is taken as synonym for “censorship”. It also seems to me that in the Wikipedia community there is a significant number of vociferous members, who mistake “freedom of information” as a “freedom of any information for anyone anytime”. But “freedom” can never be “freedom from responsibility”. Quite to the contrary, freedom is only possible if we take responsibility for our actions, particularly if these actions collide with the freedom of others. Applied to the problem that means, if I have the freedom to post a potentially offensive picture (whatever its nature) I have to take responsibility for how this posting will affect the legitimate freedom of others not to see such a picture. To post pornographic pictures in a place that is regularly frequented by children and claim it is the parents sole responsibility to care whether or not their children see these pictures has nothing to to with freedom it is simply irresponsible recklessness.
    I cannot see how implementing a filter based on content tagging could possibly contradict the spirit of Wikipedia to make information freely available. for granted, there are certainly technical issues to be solved (which I believe is possible) and detailed questions of the nature of tagging, since a picture offensive for one person might not be for another. But the Wikipedia community has found sensible solutions for similar or more complex problems in the past, so it is reasonable to believe that these minor issues can be overcome.

    Reply
  6. lun

    The biggest problem is where the line should be drawn between pornography and encyclopedic material. In fact the definition often depends on what the imagery is used for – a photograph of a vagina in an anatomy textbook is not pornography, while the very same picture in an adult magazine would be.

    Would you say that we should limit and/or ban the usage of images that, out of context, might be considered pornography? I think that’s overdoing it badly. A picture (or a video) says a thousand words, and sexuality is an important part of human life that deserves to be documented.

    Also, the “if you don’t like it, don’t look at it” rule applies here too. People, including kids, will *always* find a way to look at porn if they want to. Wikipedia is hardly the biggest “problem” when it comes to that. If you don’t want to see the world, including sex, for what it is, go browse Conservapedia or something instead. I for one wouldn’t want Wikipedia to change its stance on this. It might even help lift the shroud of shame from something that is a completely natural phenomenon.

    Reply
    1. Eric J. Ehlers

      ve got a number of problems with your argument, lun.

      * – The difference between pornographic/encyclopedic contents. What about an entry about pornography? Would an image or video of explicit sex in the context of an article about pornography be pornography? (answer: yes, by definition.)
      What about “use” of the media in terms of the person who is using it. A person searching for pornographic pictures can often get search engine results for Wikipedia before any self-proclaimed pornography site. Wikipedia’s media can be found and viewed external to the context of articles as well. Are those same images pornography or not when viewed out of context? you say “out of context, might be considered pornography” as if viewing these things out of context never happens. When, in fact, it happens very frequently.

      * – “limit/ban” This is a strawman. Mr. Sanger’s article never discusses limiting or banning anything. It discusses a very weak opt-in filter. Which means unless you deliberately activate it, it will never affect you. The solution previously approved by WMF’s board is, in fact, a method of addressing the problem with zero limits. There’s no discussion of reducing or eliminating the use of any media in any context.

      * – “If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.” This betrays an obvious lack of reading the actual article. I’ll quote it: “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.”
      Anyone who thinks this approach is valid has clearly never attempted to supervise a child doing much of anything.

      * – “Wikipedia is hardly the biggest problem.” What, pray tell, is the biggest problem? I’m not disagreeing, I’m simply pointing out that this is a way of trivializing the issue without providing any sort of factual evidence. Mr. Sanger has provided a good deal of factual, verifiable evidence that this is a non-trivial problem. It may not be the “biggest,” but a media outlet encouraging children to come use something that has a high probability showing pornographic content is certainly not a “small” problem either.

      * – “If you don’t want to see the world, including sex, for what it is” Another strawman. This argument has not been made or implied by the article.

      * – “natural phenomenon” I knew someone would go there. My wife and I having sex is natural. That doesn’t mean I want my children to watch us doing it. It also doesn’t mean that it would be acceptable to have children watching sex acts. Again, this discussion is not about “prudes” trying to blind themselves to human sexuality. This is about keeping children from viewing non-age appropriate content.

      Reply
  7. Hoopz

    You people have no idea what kids spend their time looking at online. Yes, they look at porn. Probably sooner than you’d like, but certainly later than you fear.

    What will filtering Wikipedia accomplish, other than reinforce the North American stigma that sex is wrong? If they want to look at porn, they can find it on a million other sites. At least on Wikipedia they’ll see a neutral, factual article as opposed to ridiculously exaggerated video. Do you want to start censoring articles about violence too? Oh right, violence is okay, but a child that hears about sex is irrevocably damaged.

    Stop being such prudes. I walked in on my parents having sex when I was a kid. It didn’t leave me scarred. And the TV didn’t blur out tits in shampoo commercials either. Because big surprise: half the world population has them, and not everyone is a prude.

    Reply
    1. Eric J. Ehlers

      So… it’s ok for small children to be viewing pornography? Because that’s the only thing your post implies.

      “Probably sooner than you’d like, but certainly later than you fear.” This sentence is pretty much meaningless without numbers on when children start viewing pornography. Seeing as I know of specific incidents where sex-addicts started viewing pornography as young as five or six, I’m not thinking your statement is remotely accurate.

      “At least on Wikipedia they’ll see a neutral, factual article as opposed to ridiculously exaggerated video.”
      Wikipedia media can be (and are) readily viewed outside of the articles. (and that avoids the whole argument of the “factual” nature of many articles.)

      “Do you want to start censoring articles about violence too?” A strawman. It has nothing to do with the argument Mr. Sanger puts forth. It does help your overall tone of being an ad hoc attack, though.

      Reply
    2. Larry Sanger

      I’ve deleted a number of comments like this. I thought I would approve this one just to illustrate the low quality of what passes for argument on the other side.

      “Later than you fear”? I don’t fear children looking at porn too late. Frankly, if my boys never see it, ever, in their entire lives, I would count that a good outcome. Very unlikely, of course.

      Perhaps sex was regarded as “wrong” by religious people–in the U.S. and in Europe–a hundred years ago. But today, in the U.S., even among most religious people, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who says that sex per se is “wrong.” I certainly don’t think so. I think that as you get older–regardless of where you live–the more you understand just how significant sex can be. Sex creates children (unless successfully prevented) and forges powerful emotional bonds despite attempts to treat it casually. Simple formulas like “sex is good” or “sex is bad” shows immaturity.

      Whether Wikipedia’s articles on sexual topics are “neutral” or “factual” is neither here nor there, when it comes to deciding whether to let children view them. They might be brilliantly written, by experts, and aimed at children (as part of a school sex education curriculum). Some parents might not want their children to view them; and, while I might not agree with their position, I fully support their right to raise their children as they see fit. If you want to support freedom, that’s something you have to keep in mind.

      An opt-in filter–of course, even an opt-out filter–does not “censor” anyone. It simply makes it harder for some people to view content. For parents who want to prevent their children from seeing certain content before they’re ready for it, this is called sound parenting, not “censorship.” To call it “censorship” is, quite frankly, silly and adolescent.

      And no, of course most people don’t want their children to see excessively violent images either.

      Wanting to be able to prevent your children, especially young children, from stumbling across what most people would regard as horrific images is not prudery. Saying so, again, only evinces a silly, unserious, adolescent way of thinking about these issues.

      Really, you and people like you, “Hoopz,” need to grow up and try to understand that you are behind the curve, not ahead of it, on these issues.

      Reply
      1. Hoopz

        Good job for missing my point entirely. With “later than you fear” I meant that children will seek out information about sexual content on their own time. Just because it’s available doesn’t mean everyone is looking at it. Go read descriptions from teenagers about their explorations of the internet. Go read about the girl who was pretending to be 18 when she was 12, and was able to figure out on her own terms what she thought of sex and sexuality.

        And filters, whether opt-in or opt-out, do censor. They send out a signal that certain content is different from everything else.

        As for growing up, I did, a long time ago. And the country where I did so has a much lower incidence rate of teenage pregnancy, teenage abortion, teenage STDs, etc. These statistics do not lie. Which attitudes do you think need adjusting?

        Reply
        1. Larry Sanger

          Censorship in the full-blooded sense is action on the part of government to prevent people from publishing information. It does not mean “any restriction on the flow of information that I do not personally like,” which is what you apparently think it means.

          Sending a vague signal, that not everyone might receive, is obviously not the same as censorship. Censorship, in this context, would involve the prevention of certain information from being published. If a parent turns on a filter, that does not prevent it from being published. It prevents the parent’s computer from displaying the information. I would have thought the difference between this and censorship is obvious.

          As far as “later than you fear” goes: yawn. I didn’t fear that, and I still don’t.

          Finally, as far as your preening anti-Americanism goes, that really has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. What we are debating (or rather, would be debating if you did not give me such a rich opportunity to point out red herrings and other fallacies) is whether a website should have a porn filter. A “yes” answer to that question does not commit anyone to anything having to do with the United States.

      2. Robert

        You are proud to censor opposing viewpoints. Please, continue to brag about how you silence people who disagree with you. It makes you look so good, and completely reasonable. Yes, continue to make your little echo chamber where it looks like you have the majority on your side. THIS is the internet’s problem: you can silence those who disagree with you so easily that it looks like everyone is on your side.

        Reply
        1. Larry Sanger

          Oh, get off your high horse, Robert. It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion among sympathetic persons if a blog is inundated by various trolls and lowlifes who couldn’t argue their way out of a paper bag, or who do not care about the quality of argument. I’m sorry that censorship–the more accurate term is “moderation”–on this topic is necessary. I was happy to let through some opposing remarks that stated their point of view more carefully and reasonably. Sadly, most unmoderated discussions of this topic quickly become echo chambers for various immature and silly cyber-anarchist types. What I am indeed proud of is that I offer an opportunity to those sympathetic to my point of view to state their own points without being abused, or simply distracted by transparently stupid arguments. It is obvious that this blog does not represent a cross-section of people wishing to comment on this topic, because most of such people online are idiots. That this is not an “echo chamber,” however, should be obvious considering the amount of healthy back-and-forth debate you can witness here.

          You know what really looks corrupt and unreasonable? Demanding, petulantly and ridiculously, that someone who is attempting to have a mature, reasonable discussion of a difficult topic instead allow trolls entirely unfettered ability to abuse, sidetrack, and otherwise destroy any chance of such a discussion. Which they will, if given half a chance, on this topic, here on my blog. Indeed, Robert, if you had half a brain, you would realize this. I respect and enjoy the prospect of completely unmoderated discussion from time to time. But moderation–obviously–has a place, for various reasons.

          Anyway, that’s as much time as I’m going to spend justifying the fact that this blog is moderated according to my standards.

    3. Samson

      “At least on Wikipedia they’ll see a neutral, factual article as opposed to ridiculously exaggerated video.”

      Really? Factual and neutral? On Wikipedia? I think perhaps someone’s definition of both has been stretched well beyond the breaking point.

      Reply
  8. Natasha Brown

    Most of us are here because our parents had sex and our mother didn’t make an abortion. This is a fact.

    Were they in love? We hope so, we hope that there was a bit of love somewhere. Even test tube babies have this hope. We are all here because someone some day wanted us to be here. Someone had gave us food when we were unable to feed ourselves. This is a fact. We all had our share of love.

    I searched through “Sex” and “Pornography” articles in Wikipedia there is no word “Love” there. I searched through “Love” article in Wikipedia and found many words “Sex/ual” there.

    I feels like a luck of LOVE! Can Wikipedia we give us a bit of LOVE? Can it protect the ones who can’t yet protect themselves from the harmful images?

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Thanks for weighing in, Natasha! I’m afraid “wikilove” does not extend to parents who want to prevent their children from seeing certain images before they’re ready to see them.

      Reply
  9. Nishant

    Hi Larry

    I can’t empathize (no children) but I can understand where you are coming from. Even so, I think a better alternative is client side filtering. Because placing the onus on Wikipedia (today and maybe something else tomorrow) is not a sustainable solution. I think we would be better off with a standard product which provides client side filtering and can be installed, configured and turned on or off by the concerned parent on his/her own internet access device. Placing the responsibility of censorship on the hosting service is a lot like the two bills that have recently been screamed at to death.

    Just my two cents.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      I can’t agree. If Flickr can do it, why can’t Wikipedia?

      Few people would install a client-side filter. But lots of people would use a version of Wikipedia filtered for children (not a different ‘pedia, but the same one filtered). If Wikipedia cared about their most important readers–children, of course–then this would be a no-brainer.

      Reply
  10. Robert

    I totally agree with you, being a math and computer-teacher myself!!!

    Reply
Older Comments
1 2 3 4 5 … 8
Newer Comments

Leave a Reply to Guest Cancel reply

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

Log in