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. Alsaya

    I see a fundamental decision here – doing censorship on behalf a good intention. What about another filter for moslems?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Why not, indeed? Christians and atheists might find it silly that Muslims consider images of Muhammad blasphemous, but it is part of their religion and culture. Why not give them the ability to turn such images off? Wouldn’t that help secure their readership and hence help educate them and their children?

      There might be a few legitimate reasons (ultimately unsuccessful, but not obviously wrong reasons) for opposing the installation of filters. But merely being pushy, insensitive people, who insist on imposing own libertine values on parents, certainly doesn’t justify it. I find it ridiculous how blinkered, how culturally narrow, some people are who insist that Wikipedia must have no filter because it is a “big tent” project, and “neutral,” and open to “all cultures.” If you want a big tent project, and appeal to many cultures, you do not do that by adopting the most permissive position allowed by law. That means adopting a very narrow culture indeed, that of Western libertarian anarchists. Mainstream Europeans and Americans, to say nothing of people in other parts of the world, do not feel welcome in this “tent.”

      Reply
      1. Andy

        No one is preventing anyone else from producing a client-side toolbar that can be installed by concerned parents. In fact, why not raise money for that?

        I would love to know if any of these parents want to donate their money or time to Wikipedia for the filtering system and subsequent tagging. Or maybe, they want something for nothing.

        Reply
    2. Natasha Brown

      Alsaya, I totally agree with you. There should be no images of Muhammad on Wikipedia as well since they hurt every Muslim.

      One can’t learn a thing when he is in pain. I am for education that is given with love. People have to learn to respect each other cultures and traditions. The absence of the images on Wikipedia will teach us more more then their presence.

      Reply
  2. mollydot

    “Kids (or anyone) will find pornography if they look for it” is irrelevant. It’s reasonable to find a photo of someone hogtied in a bathtub if you search for “hogtied bondage”. It’s unexpected if you’re searching for “bathtub” though.
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=bathtub&title=Special%3ASearch

    Reply
    1. Andy

      Concerned parents should put their money where their mouth is: make a client-side toolbar that does what you want. Don’t demand it free from an organization that should use its resources better than to cater to people’s vague, undefinable moral standards.

      This vagueness is the problem with most filtering. What exactly defines “bad”? We can point to the extremes and all agree, but what about the gray area? And again, who does that work of tagging, provided we figure out what constitutes “bad”? I can guarantee to you that it certainly won’t be the busy parents who demand everything for free.

      Reply
  3. Guest

    Where is the problem…. There are worse websites on the internet just one mouseclick away… I see no problem. Wikipedia is the real life. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Reply
  4. Someone87361

    I’m glad this is finally getting some attention. I’m a 20 year old male, and I’ve been fairly surprised (and disappointed) by the reaction of most ‘Wikipedians’. I still think trying to actually block pornographic images is pointless, because, as others have pointed out, there are many other sources around for those who are actively looking for it. But I don’t understand why anyone would object to a opt-in filter which can be circumvented with a single button click. Do we actually need scientific studies to prove that it’s not a good idea to expose young children to porn?

    For those who claim that all these children are actively looking for porn: I’m sure a lot of them are, but definitely not all of them, especially the younger ones. And yes, it is perfectly possible to find pornographic images when you weren’t looking for them, because:

    – Children don’t know all possible slang words for all possible fetishes, and you can hardly expect parents to teach them those. When I read a word I haven’t heard before, I will usually do a search for it on Wikipedia. It’s simply the easiest way to figure out what it means. So far I’ve unintentionally come across porn on Wikipedia on FOUR different occasions, simply by searching for words that I read on perfectly mainstream websites that are considered child-safe. You should realize that children WILL come across these words, and the best way to explain to them what ‘hentai’ means is definitely NOT simply showing it. (In case you were wondering, that was one of the four occasions I was talking about – what, do you expect me to know Japanese?)

    – Wikipedia is used a lot by non-native English speakers (or readers, actually), like me. Yes, also children – hardly a surprise given the huge amount of English-with-subtitles TV shows aimed at children that are aired here. Sex-related words that you consider well-known are most likely NOT well-known among non-native English speakers. These words are simply not taught in English class and definitely won’t appear in TV shows aimed at children (and even shows that ARE marked 16+ are far more discrete about this than the average person on the internet, apparently). Yes, I know Wikipedia exists in many languages, but the English one is significantly larger (not just the number of articles, also the size of the articles) and of better quality than the one in my native language. I don’t know if the situation is the same for all languages, but it would hardly surprise me.

    If the magnitude of the problem can’t convince Wikipedians to do something, then I hope that bringing more media attention to the problem will open their eyes: Even if you somehow believe that it is actually in everyone’s best interest to show children pornography, you should realize that there are MANY people who will not agree with you, and if you refuse to listen to these people, they will be turned away. Google knows this – they may or may not be evil, but they’re definitely not stupid.

    I think we can all agree that parents stopping their children from using Wikipedia will harm Wikipedia’s original purpose, i.e. educating people. Whether you’re right is irrelevant, you won’t be able to convince those parents. In the end you’ll have to decide what’s more important: giving thousands of children access to a huge amount of information, or stubbornly trying to prove your point?

    Reply
    1. Natasha Brown

      I thank you so much for your input into the matter. I love the way you write 🙂 Thank you!

      Reply
  5. Gunnar

    I am liberal, male and I have no children.

    I did not expect this content on Wikipedia. Despite using the Internet daily since many years I was surprised reading this article.

    I do not see much purpose for this material to be on Wikipedia (or Creative Commons). And if the respect or confidence for Wikipedia, in the eyes of many people, is lost because of this content, I think it does more harm than good. I mean, the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia for the world is lowered by this content.

    Wikipedia can of course decide that “free speech” and “more is more” are the principles to follow. But Wikipedia is already moderated in the name of quality. Wikipedia does not have to be the source of everything. Wikipedia is not the Pirate Bay.

    Maybe I am just limited by thinking that Wikipedia should be like an old encyclopedia – just free and digital?

    However, I understand that making a list of controversial topics that Wikipedia should not cover is not a completely nice way to go. If everything that is controversial to any minority or religious group is banned, then we all lose.

    But any controversial article can be subject to debate on Wikipedia. In a similar way I think articles about adult topics can be “improved” by making them “acceptable” to most people.

    So I guess I am going one step further than a filter, and instead suggest to raise the quality of the content – which in effect can mean to remove rather than keep content. Simply form guidelines for adult topics that focus on purpose, actual educational value, good taste and mature judgement.

    Reply
  6. Épisode 22 – Fin du Wikiconcours « Les échos d'en bas

    […] Presse/Blogs : Wikipédia dépasse 20 millions de visiteurs/mois en France (Médiamétrie) ■ WIKIPÉDIA, le légendaire site encyclopédique faussement libre, effectivement noyauté, fliqué, trahi, dénaturé… ■ Monmouth, première ville Wikipédia (encore une fois) ■ Si Wikipédia était une entreprise qu’est ce que ça vaudrait ? (Audio) ■ What should we do about Wikipedia’s porn problem? […]

    Reply
  7. Xiaolongimnida

    Obviously Mr Sanger never realised that
    1. Google’s “filter” is optional, too
    2. There are gadgets that help parental screening of the browsed content
    3. A kid only ends up at the masturbation video if he/she searches for or clicks on the masturbation article – therefore it is up to the parent to screen what their kids look at
    4. If the illustrations are so “pornographic”, what about the content of the article, huh? Shall we not just delete the articleof masturbation because it describes the act of masturbation?

    Hypocrisy, that’s what I call your article.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Another post that I would ordinarily delete due to lack of intellectual seriousness, but I’m going to approve it in order to point out how half-baked the arguments are on the other side.
      1. I said that SafeSearch (Google’s filter) is opt-out. That means it’s optional, Einstein.
      2. There are no “gadgets” that reliably filter Wikipedia, for a whole variety of reasons. Particularly due to the extreme unreliability of keyword-based filtering, most school district filters are site-based, i.e., either the whole site is permitted or it is entirely blocked.
      3. Wrong. It is increasingly easy to stumble upon porn in Wikipedia unwittingly. It is even easier for curious Junior to search for something like “sex” and after a series of mouseclicks arrive at something decidedly not for children.
      4. Yes, certain whole topics should be blocked in a filter written for children–that’s a no-brainer for most parents. The fact that you find this to be a zinger of an argument speaks volumes.
      5. I recommend you look up the word “hypocrisy,” as you don’t seem to know what it means.

      It seems likely that this writer has no children and the maturity of his/her thinking indicates he/she hasn’t gotten much past a teenage mindset. Yet this is the sort of person that determines policy for the fifth most popular website in the world.

      Reply
  8. gumby_trucker

    After reading the article and some of the comments I started thinking about the technical difficulty of implementing such a filter.

    I am not a programmer, but it seems to me like there could be a simple way to effectively circumvent the problem.

    From what I understand the most troubling content is in the form of explicit imagery, and due to the complexities of language (euphemisms etc) it is possible to stumble upon such content unintentionally.

    If this is the case, then there would be several ways to reach this content:
    1)following a hyper-text link from within wikipedia or from elsewhere on the internet.
    2)reaching the page in question via an external search-engine (google, bing, etc).
    3)reaching the page via wikipedia’s internal search.

    As far as I understand #2 is a non-issue since such engines already filter content based on explicit imagery.

    #1 can be easily dealt with according to established editing protocols on wikipedia. In fact I’m fairly certain this is already done by the community anyway: If an editor sees a link to highly explicit entries on a page where it has no business being, common sense would dictate he’d think twice about leaving the link in place. If that’s not happening right now, it may be simply due to lack of awareness among wikipedia editors of the size of this issue.

    As far as linking to explicit content on wikipedia from elsewhere on the internet, each site should be held responsible for the links it chooses to display. If a child reaches inappropriate content on wikipedia via another site, then either that site mistakenly displayed the link, or it is a site that should be blocked from further access by you your child.

    This leaves #3 (and also part of #1 which I’ll address later). In the case of searching for an article via wikipedia’s own search, how feasible would it be to have an external search engine like google be responsible for handling queries on the site? That way you would once again be getting filtered results based on explicit imagery.

    Is it prohibitively expensive to license google’s search-engine for searching within a website? Many smaller websites seem to have this as an option.

    Perhaps there is a concern by wikipedians over loss of control or objectivity of the content if the user has to go through a third party in order to access it?
    In such a case, simply having the option to use google-search by default instead of wikipedia’s search would accomplish many of the goals of having an internal filter, and wouldn’t require a lot of coding either.
    Parents would just have to enable this option once.

    The most complicated issue, as far as I understand, seems to be hidden in point #1. By the very nature of hypertext linking it is possible to start out on one topic and end up, several links later, on a completely unrelated one. It’s not difficult to imagine a scenario where a child is reading about something purely educational and ends up viewing a page about anatomy, which leads to links about reproductive organs which eventually lead to unsuitable content, without ever crossing a clear “line” between a proper and improper page linking to this content.

    While this is something an editor of articles on the site would have no control over, I’m not convinced it’s the main offender as far as means of accessing pornographic material go.
    Some level of curiosity is healthy, and I believe even young children still have a rudimentary awareness of when they are some place they shouldn’t be. Further more this issue can be alleviated to an extent through forward thinking editing of articles that circle the “unsuitable zone” (such as eliminating euphemisms when they’re unnecessary).

    It might be worth it to implement a suggestion similar to the one above, which seemingly would require minimal effort, and then re-evaluate the situation several months later. That way we could see if this kind of approach is “good enough” or if there is a need for a more explicit method of filtering content.

    Like I said before, I’m no programmer. Please let me know if I’ve missed anything obvious or if any of my assumptions are incorrect.

    Hopefully we can find a simple solution to this issue before it becomes a concern of mainstream media. If not, there’s always the option to withhold support until it is addressed come funding-season, though I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to that.

    Reply
  9. Spiff

    My early sex education was mostly due to my father’s collection of Lady Chatterley, Fanny Hill, and an (then illegally) imported copy of the Kamasutra that he brought back from a trip to India. I’m a great grandfather and I don’t think that my sexual proclivities are any threat to anyone. I’ve been married to the same woman for almost 40 years, and have kids, grandkids, and now great grandkids. They are all “normal” and have healthy and reasonably well-adjusted family lifes. FWIW, I gave my daughter a copy of Fanny Hill on her 16th b’day…

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Hi Grandpa Spiff, did you happen to click on many of the links, or consider that any 7-year-old surfing Wikipedia for “pearl necklace” might come across some pretty inappropriate images? Giving teenagers highbrow erotica hardly compares, it seems to me. Are you saying there’s no need for a filter on Wikipedia? Do tell.

      Reply
  10. CD-Host

    Hi Larry —

    Well I’m a parent whose child has gone through the whole cycle. I’ve been active on the internet since 1988, before there was a web and well before I met her mother. So my daughter grew up her whole life:

    a) “owning” at least one internet enabled device, i.e. a device she used and was the primary user of

    b) exposed to the internet

    And what I found, even given the far greater opportunity to get her hands of adult material, is that she’s more conservative by far than I was at those ages. My concern is her hitting adult content accidentally not intentionally. Intentionally she is either ready or close to ready, accidentally was different. Wikipedia compared to the rest of the internet is rather light. Even if you hit upon something adult, it is usually a single image not 3000 full motion video clips. Wikipedia is rather light compared to most of the sexual encylopedias available online. Objectively wikipedia is sort of light R there certainly is no porn on wikipedia. And yes I’ve seen the images you link to, they lack enough build up to make them porn in isolation.

    I object mildly to content tagging because of where it could lead. That is I support freedom for the source document. And the reason is there is simply no way to do this without taking a very strong POV on the relative merits of different types of sex and sexual depictions vs. violence and violence depictions vs. religion / blaspheme vs. criminal activities (gambling) …

    Back about 6 years, I’ve edited articles on poker. The majority of people in the United States playing poker do so in illegal games. There is no ways those articles aren’t an incitement to illegal gambling, but gambling doesn’t offend your morals so you don’t object to those articles. And that’s typical.

    The history of:
    internet white / black lists
    movie ratings / censorship
    video game ratings
    boycots of bookstores and magazine racks

    show how complex these issues are and how once you get beyond easy “wikipedia should be child safe” the actual implementation will be culturally biased. Those same male libertarians you object to will be the ones tagging articles. They will be the ones creating these detailed guidelines. They are the ones that are going to have to decide to revert the tagged for adults only “George W Bush” while keeping it on Pearl Neckless which means they are going to have to write the complex policies based on a morality they reject.

    Wikipedia allows for forking. The appropriate place for censored versions of wikipedia are forked versions. I certainly agree someone like the LDS church, that is someone with enough assets to raise the volunteers and/or pay the resources needed, could and should produce a content reduced version of wikipedia which is better suited for schools, children…. Mormon organizations like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks have proven they have the capability for precisely the kind of work you are asking for. I see no reason that needs to be moved to the main branch.

    Now that being said, am I liberal. Yes. Sex topics with children bother me far less than the average parent. I was far more upset by her being exposed to crust free white bread and saltines in nursery school than I would have been by an image of a penis. I’m was far more upset by her exposure in elementary school to the normalization of the idea of an all powerful punitive deity then I would have been about an image of intercourse and far more upset in middle school by her being trained to trust in arbitrary authority then anything what-so-ever she would have seen in wikipedia. And that’s precisely the problem… there is not broad agreement on what are the dangers to children.

    Reply
Older Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8
Newer Comments

Leave a Reply

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

Log in