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. Larry Sanger Blog » Let’s try out “Golden Filter Premium” on Wikipedia, shall we?

    […] are heavily used by school children, and widely available in schools, and yet they host enormous amounts of porn. Anyway, the journalist-activist and I had a charming exchange, the end of which went like […]

    Reply
  2. Larry Sanger Blog » My Greatest Hits

    […] What should we do about Wikipedia’s porn problem? (May 2012) […]

    Reply
  3. So, you didn’t know that Wikipedia has a porn problem? – Featurette

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

    Reply
  4. Guest Hey

    Hello, I agree with most of what you say and I think that this really should be more well known and talked about.

    One thing I don’t really like and find quite ironic is the fact that you are able to share this on Reddit of all places. Isn’t that site even worse than Wikipedia when it comes to this? With all the controversies etc…
    I understand that you might want this to reach as many people as possible, but still.

    Thank you for taking your time to write about this and hopefully also reading and responding to this comment.

    Reply
  5. Adiora

    First, I want to clarify that I don’t disagree with you on moral grounds. Just practical ones. You seem to be trying to cram the genie back into a bottle that never really held it in the first place.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I see three general assertions:
    1) Children should be sheltered from porn.
    2) WMF should do something to protect children if they are going to promote themselves to children.
    3) WMF should not censor content, just create a screen.

    As for the first, I’m afraid children are smarter than most adults give them credit for. Even before the advent internet, I figured out from a line in Tom Sawyer that human anatomy books had some kind of titillating content. Just from that I learned all kinds of things my parents wish I hadn’t when I was in the second grade. Maybe that was too young, but if it’s a question of censoring Mark Twain, I’m willing to say early exposure is the lesser of the evils. Unless there is a major, MAJOR shift in the functioning of the internet, keeping kids barred from adult content is just not going to be possible anymore.

    If your issue isn’t with access to the information/images in general, rather that it’s available through a source people don’t think to question, then (my apologies for being blunt) I think your idea of a click-through warning is worse than ineffective. It would probably be counter-productive. The warnings on television that “the following may be disturbing for some viewers” draws kids and teens like moths. There is no better way to guarantee a child will try to read something than banning it. The warning screen would be nothing more than a gesture, and without outright censorship, it would do nothing more than call attention to the adult material.

    I’m going to go with the “parents should be responsible, not the internet” side of the argument, but not by telling people to hover over their kids’ desks. When I learned about the birds and the bees from books, magazines, movies, and eventually websites, I didn’t have anyone to talk to about it. I was painfully shy with no close friends, and my parents just told me not to read smut and left it at that. That didn’t make me stop wanting to learn, it just left me at the mercy of my own naïveté, discomfort, and curiosity.

    So, I say to parents that we need to teach our kids to be educated, responsible, comfortable, and respectful when figuring out their sexuality. What kids don’t need is to feel guilty, ashamed, lost, or – above all – rebellious. Teach kids that their bodies are absolutely their own to do with as they choose, and those choices, good or bad, will affect them forever.

    They say that the only thing evil needs to work in this world is for good people to do nothing. I say the only thing needed for children to develop warped or harmful attitudes about sex is to have all the well-meaning and responsible adults in their lives turn a blind eye and sweep the whole subject under a rug.

    Or behind an opt-in warning screen.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      No, I’m not trying to cram the porn genie back into the bottle. I’m not an idiot. Are you meaning to assert that I am? Do you really think that a co-founder of Wikipedia is that ignorant about how the Internet works?

      I’m not sure I ever argued for the much more difficult-to-defend proposition that children should be sheltered from porn, although I happen to believe that. I maintain the much more modest proposition that websites should support parents and schools in their efforts to protect children from porn. It’s much worse considering the truly egregious stuff that Wikipedia hosts and defends. We’re not talking about the sort of stuff that you can find in anatomy books.

      The point is not to make it impossible for children to view porn. If they really want to, they’ll be able to. No part of my argument implies anything different. The point is to reinforce the idea that it is verboten for children, to reinforce the societal norm that it is not appropriate for children actually to be viewing the stuff.

      If I were designing the filter, I would want it not just to be a warning screen but something that makes it impossible to view the stuff as long as the user is logged in with that account. Besides, if Wikipedia had the “to-filter” data in its database, then it would be easy for people to build more powerful tools.

      The “parents should be responsible, not the internet” talking point is one made and propagated by teenagers and people who are not responsible for children. How should parents be responsible without tools that make it possible for them to exercise their responsibility? It’s pretty hard (not impossible, I’m sure) to find a filter that does fine-grained filtering of the sort that Wikipedia should be doing. Yes, parents would like to be responsible. Lacking an effective filter, how? Stop kids from using Wikipedia? That’s my solution for now. My child is forbidden to use Wikipedia. We have a subscription to Britannica, which is perfect for my 6-year-old’s purposes.

      Besides, this silly point is effectively demolished by the reply that Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc.–all the big boys–are cooperating with parents and teachers in this way. Why not Wikipedia?

      Unlike you, I don’t paternalistically presume to tell parents how to treat the topic of sexuality. If they want to raise their children with no boundaries–poor children–that’s their prerogative as parents. If they do, then they should be supported in reasonable efforts in approximately similar ways to Google, etc.

      Reply
  6. TMG

    Well, I don’t feel like delving too far into this mostly pointless argument, but I will say one thing, however. My pornographic viewing habits began at the ripe old age of 7. Perusing a few boxes of Playboys, etc. that were left in the hallway of my apartment building in the lower East Side of Manhattan. I saw in a few of your comments, that you denigrate pornography as being so dangerous to ‘little boys.’ Alas, as a wee boy at the time, apparently I was immune to said ‘dangers,’ seeing as how I grew up fine (37 now), have a child of my own (she’s 9) and have had many healthy sexual relationships in the course of my life, and, lo and behold, I didn’t magically become some naive, hateful, misogynist.

    Porn – First world problem.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Actually, I’m not sure how harmful Playboy-type porn is to kids. I think it might depend on the kid (and their upbringing). But a lot of the stuff available online, and on Wikipedia, is not Playboy-type porn.

      In any case, my personal opinion about porn (as I said, I’m a libertarian) is irrelevant. My point is that parents should be given the tools they need to take their own approach.

      Reply
      1. TMG

        The only issue I have, is that too many parents take the knee jerk reaction with everything involving their children. Parenting is to be a guide when a child needs it, not to have their entire lives endlessly policed to avoid the ‘evils’ of the world. Time and time again, the most messed up people I’ve met in this world were ALWAYS the sheltered ones. Never those who were allowed to experience things, with parents there to explain the pros and cons of it all, but the ones who’s parents basically put them inside of a bubble. Sure, material like this might not be suitable for all young children, however, I don’t think proper methodology of dealing with it is to enable censoring in any fashion. People really, really need to get over the concept that children are these delicate, fragile beings. They aren’t. Not in the least. They might end up BECOMING fragile, but that’s not their own making, that’s the sole responsibility (fault) of parents and society panicking every time they get so much as a small cut. Adults must learn to stop pushing their hang-ups, fears and apprehensions upon their children.

        Reply
        1. Larry Sanger

          So, you think the “fisting” article might be appropriate for some (not all) children? And that those who do not see it, and similarly perverted stuff, would be “living in a bubble”?

          Anyway, your point is ultimately irrelevant, so let’s get back to the real issue. It isn’t your job to tell parents how to raise their children. You can wish they raised them a different way. Fine. But if you’re going to be truly tolerant and liberal in your attitude, you should be tolerant and liberal of the wide diversity of parenting styles. In order to support that, you’d have to support having some opt-in filters, as Google has.

        2. TMG

          And, no, you missed my point by leagues and bounds, it was not that pornography and such and the lack of viewing would put children in bubbles, but that far too many are raised by knee jerk reactions, and that kind of effort does not work in a child’s best interest. A better way to deal with it, IMO, instead of censoring something they ‘might’ (e.g., less than 1% chance) see, is to be more open and communicative with your kids. The world isn’t a pretty place, and sheltering doesn’t help. Hasn’t helped a single kid in the history of forever. And it never will.

        3. Larry Sanger

          Your notion that sheltering kids from porn involves “knee jerk reactions” is idiotic. Sheltering does help; some kids who are exposed to the seamy underbelly of society are sometimes scarred by it for life. Apparently, you don’t have children. Anyway, I’m done talking to you. You’ve proven the quality of your judgment.

  7. TMG

    I don’t support Google’s opt-in filters.

    Reply
  8. Wiki1 – Blog 1015 – Site Home – TechNet Blogs

    […] Sanger, Larry. "What should we do about Wikipedia's porn problem?". Retrieved July 26, […]

    Reply
  9. Wikimedia Foundation’s new VP of Engineering introduces himself | Wikipediocracy

    […] What should we do about Wikipedia’s porn problem? (LarrySanger.org, 29 May 2012) […]

    Reply
  10. beev

    I have a proposition for those opposed to the status quo, that is, an inability to filter out content deemed inappropriate for children or the workplace that makes a bigger statement than boycott. Simply remove images that are disturbing, degrading or inappropriate. Especially those that show up on pages that are not obviously going to contain such images. I realize this goes against some of what wikipedia stands for, which I generally agree with, but it also sends a small message that there is a problem and something needs to be done about it. I also realize that wikipedia is set up so that moderators can effectively and easily protect content that they deem appropriate from deletion or change. Again, the point is not necessarily to eliminate the presence of such content (although a slight reduction might occur – fine with me), but to send the message: there is a problem; something needs to be done about it. Wikipedia is a great tool for the classroom, but teachers can’t use it safely (for their jobs or for the students) when the risk of a pornstar or worse popping up on the screen is there. I’m not talking about intentional searches for such things btw.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      You’d think that might work, and in fact Jimbo tried it, and he was smacked down by the larger community. So some other solution must be tried.

      Reply
      1. Bruce Smith

        I don’t know what to do about Wikipedia itself, but I just published a proposal for a new kind of “software for collecting and discussing knowledge” which has an architecture which is intended to provide an inherent solution to this problem.

        [a Social Network for Ideas](http://oresmus.github.io/blog/2015/09/21/social-net-for-ideas.html)

        Maybe it would be relevant to your news-collecting project too (re the issue of “keeping out the tinfoil hats” which someone raised in a comment; my proposal would not really keep them out, only mark them so whoever wanted to could filter them from their own view). But I only learned about that project a few minutes ago and haven’t yet studied it.

        I don’t yet know whether my writeup is generally understandable, so if any of you are interested and have some time, maybe you can tell me whether, after reading it, it’s obvious why I make that claim for it. If it’s not, I’ll be glad to elaborate.

        Reply
Older Comments
1 … 5 6 7 8
Newer Comments

Leave a Reply

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

Log in