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. Saud

    Its a very serious problem that needs to be addressed by the board of directors of wikipedia, or else it will have a negative impact on the children as they use wiki for information and knowledge gaining purpose. I would strongly support Larry for taking this issue very seriously and suggesting of adding a filter which should eventually prevent this.

  2. Nathan

    Wikipedia contents have a permissive license. There should be a meta site wrapped around wikipedia (wikikids.org? kids.wikipedia.org?) that presents whitelisted articles only, with a community whitelisting mechanism. The whitelist flags can exist entirely outside of wikipedia, and in fact the entire project can exist outside of wikipedia. No need to involve the wikipedia community at all if they are not interested.

    1. I like the general idea, but I disagree that the Wikimedia Foundation should not be closely involved. First, they raise $20 million per year; that money should pay for projects like this, which serve the public, which believes Wikipedia is an appropriate resource for kids. Second, many people will blindly keep using Wikipedia if the WMF does not do the right, and honest, thing and point them in the direction of kid-safe filters or a kid-safe site.

      I do agree that we don’t want the typical silly Wikipedian to futz with the filter data. Having a separate website suits me, as long as it is closely integrated with Wikipedia (i.e., there is little or no lag), and as long as the “WP for Kids” site is advertised loud and clear from within the main Wikipedia.

  3. […] recent months, Larry Sanger has has taken up a more conservative cause, focused on some of Wikipedia’s more controversial content. Sanger is critical of Wikipedia for allowing the inclusion of sexually explicit photos on articles […]

  4. Anthony

    Thank you Mr. Sanger for your commitment to this issue. I do hope that ultimately there is a filtering mechanism offered by Wikipedia, because I do believe that Wikipedia provides much of value to the world, and I would like to be able to continue my usage in good conscience. I currently use a site-base filtering mechanism on my home internet connection, as well as a second layer of filtering which filters based on information provided by a third-party. I did find that my current filtering is already blocking all of commons.wikimedia.org which blocks much of the content referred to in your article above, while of course also blocking much of what I personally feel is of value. I am now faced with the dilemma of whether to block all of Wikipedia.org as well. I would rather not have to do so, though there are other sources for most of the content my family and I would lose out on.

    One thought that would be helpful if ultimately Wikipedia is unwilling to implement any sort of filter, is if they would at least separate ALL media from the text onto a separate domain. Then we could at least filter using a domain-based filtering mechanism to achieve a text-only Wikipedia, with just place-holder images taking the place of all the broken links. That would not be an ideal solution, though in my opinion that would be better than blocking all of Wikipedia.org.

    Much has been discussed about images/videos that are inappropriate and or damaging to children. Another aspect that could be considered, (my apologies for not being able to quote references) is the negative impact “adult” material can have on some adults. (Maybe others could provide research studies.) It is my belief though that some individuals can become addicted to consuming “adult” media, to the point that their preoccupation becomes damaging to their career, family, and other relationships in the same way that alcoholism has a destructive effect. Obviously most would seek out that content through other sites, but it is significant to note that the predominance of Wikipedia and it’s assummed “safety” so-to-speak, means that it will not normally be filtered in many locations such as schools and libraries where typical porn-focused sites will be blocked. So thus Wikipedia is currently enabling broader access to this potentially harmful content to those porn-addicted individuals. And the same accidental exposure concern applies to these adults as well–if I am recovering from an addiction to “adult” content I would like to be able to use Wikipedia without concern that I might stumble across it.

    I personally believe that much of the neutrality argument from the libertarians you describe is deliberate, cowardly, deception on the part of those standing behind it. “Come in to my tent, I have many great things to share with you”, when once inside the tent you find much that you did not expect. I find this to be no more morally noble than a molester inticing a child into a van with offers of playing with his puppy. If these self-described morally superior individuals had the guts to be upfront with their content-paint the picture on the van so-to-speak, they would find public outrage, and see their funding and good-will dry up immediately. To whomever controls the content of the main Wikipedia landing page, I dare you to put the top 10 by popularity images right up on the main page, along with streams of the most popular videos. I know you do not have the guts to do it. If these images are so “neutral” and harmless, why not?

    I personally am now going to share your article with my children’s schools as well as some religious leaders I know well so that they can make informed decisions regarding the content they provide and pass this information on to those they have influence over. Sadly the majority of them will likely choose to block all of Wikipedia since there is not another simple, effective solution. I guess that the Wikpedians, as you term them, find that preferable.

    I leave your readers with one question–that is if any are aware of any content-based third-party filtering tools that are effective at providing a “family friendly” Wikipedia. If so, would you please share this information in the comments? (And yes we already try to monitor our childrens internet use as much as possible, but you can’t be over their shoulder all the time.)

    Thanks again, Mr. Sanger

    1. Thank you so much Anthony for voicing your concern This world needs “family friendly” Wikipedia.

      Many people comment that parents should monitor their children’s internet use. But children in our world don’t have parents! – There are wars, illnesses, natural disasters. – Many children have biological parents who aren’t able to love them and/or care for them.

      Many of us aren’t able nor to adopt those children nor to offer any help to their parents. We aren’t able to offer them love that they deserve. The list we can do is to protect them from the things that can hurt them as much as we can.

  5. […] Sanger呼籲使用者正视许多内容条目含有成人内容的现象,他也要求推动色情资讯过滤机制。暴行巴林人权运动人士Nabeel […]

  6. Is Wikipedia compliant with CIPA?…

    The Child Internet Protection Act (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act) requires that school districts who receive funding through e-rate block “obscene” websites. Wikipedia arguably hosts quite a bit of obscene material (see,…

  7. […] had grown substantially since 2010. With the help of those colleagues I carefully wrote and posted this explanation of the problem, which got quite a bit of exposure. As I put it via Twitter: […]

  8. […] to libel law, are often forced to participate in an arcane and often unfair system. Wikipedia also lacks any filter for their enormous porn holdings, while its representatives continue to tout it as a […]

  9. […] story goes on to discuss Wikipedia’s problem of unfiltered porn, readily available to the school children who use it, and includes my YouTube video about the […]

  10. someone

    You are totally right something must be done to solve this serious issue, anyone who disagrees with this is a neglectful person and the WMF are a bunch of hypocrites if they say “it’s safe for children to use, but if they see something pornographic like bestiality or a sick fetish is then mommy and daddy’s fault”.

Leave a Reply

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