Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

fredbaud at fairpoint

May 14, 2009, 4:46 AM

Post #1 of 66 (1942 views)
Permalink

Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

> This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
> sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
> any drawing could be.
>
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
of knowledge to the world.

I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
(sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.

I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
Karma Sutra.

Fred Bauder

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

oscar at wikimedia

May 14, 2009, 4:56 AM

Post #2 of 66 (1909 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
very best,
oscar

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint> wrote:

> > This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
> > sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
> > any drawing could be.
> >
> >
> > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
*edito ergo sum*

******************
The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
******************
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

May 14, 2009, 5:06 AM

Post #3 of 66 (1904 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> very best,
> oscar

Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
right thing.

Fred

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

oldakquill at gmail

May 14, 2009, 6:09 AM

Post #4 of 66 (1913 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
>> This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
>> sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
>> any drawing could be.
>>
>>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder

Why shouldn't it be? Most humans engage in sexual practices of some
kind or another, so I would think our content on sexual practices
would be relevant to many of our readers. You suggest we should treat
content on sexual practices differently to how we treat content on
sporting practices because some of our readers may be minors. I am not
going to dispute the cultural relativity of what is suitable for
minors at the moment, but if we were to make the assumption that some
content is not suitable for minors (or, more to the point, that
because some content is considered unsuitable for minotrs, Wikipedia
is being discouraged at school), isn't there a better solution than
deleting content? For example, couldn't articles be tagged with a
"this article details sexual practices which some readers may feel is
not suitable for minors"? Articles with such a tag could be blocked in
user preferences, or for school IP ranges at the request of the
school. We could explain the tag at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia for
schools]] and explain how it is used.

I, personally, contend the premise that some content is inherently
unsuitable for minors. It really comes down to what some sections of
society consider unsuitable. For example, a Mormon parent's idea of
what is unsuitable, may differ to a Protestant parent's idea of what
is unsuitable - leaving alone the many possible non-Christian
variations. The point is that "suitability" is culturally relative.
Some parents may think it unsuitable at all to describe genital organs
or reproduction, many would think it entirely suitable. If we are to
honour removal/selective blocking of content on the grounds that it is
sexual, should we also honour a Mormon's parent's requests to block
the [[Joseph Smith]] article, which may give details that are
unpalatable to Mormons? Should we selectively block articles relating
to non-belief to honour parent's concerns as to what their children
are exposed to? It is a very slippery slope.

I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
that basis.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill [at] gmail)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cimonavaro at gmail

May 14, 2009, 6:54 AM

Post #5 of 66 (1900 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

Fred Bauder wrote:
>> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
>> very best,
>> oscar
>>
>
> Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> right thing.
>

From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
you seem to appreciate.

The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
"rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
conditions for which there is no proven link.

Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
consequences, and just do what is right.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

May 14, 2009, 6:58 AM

Post #6 of 66 (1896 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

Hoi,
As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/5/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail>

> Fred Bauder wrote:
> >> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> >> very best,
> >> oscar
> >>
> >
> > Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> > right thing.
> >
>
> From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> you seem to appreciate.
>
> The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> conditions for which there is no proven link.
>
> Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> consequences, and just do what is right.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cunctator at gmail

May 14, 2009, 7:04 AM

Post #7 of 66 (1898 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long enough
to know that censorship is a dead issue.

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail>wrote:

> Hoi,
> As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
> It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
> other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/5/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail>
>
> > Fred Bauder wrote:
> > >> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> > >> very best,
> > >> oscar
> > >>
> > >
> > > Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> > > right thing.
> > >
> >
> > From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> > around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> > you seem to appreciate.
> >
> > The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> > "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> > view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> > conditions for which there is no proven link.
> >
> > Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> > be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> > right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> > this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> > consequences, and just do what is right.
> >
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cimonavaro at gmail

May 14, 2009, 7:05 AM

Post #8 of 66 (1901 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
> It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
> other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>

Your thanks may be misplaced.

It is abundantly clear that your statement that there are
people who care about this is quite overstated.

So just get off your high horse yourself, or be taken down.

Please have a civil tongue.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

May 14, 2009, 7:11 AM

Post #9 of 66 (1907 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
>>> very best,
>>> oscar
>>>
>>
>> Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
>> right thing.
>>
>
> From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> you seem to appreciate.
>
> The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> conditions for which there is no proven link.
>
> Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> consequences, and just do what is right.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

Without being superstitious, Wikipedia's karms is simply the consequences
of what we do, in this case, loss of both the usefulness of the
encyclopedia by part of broad spectrum of potential users and possible
loss of public support. Fucking the gods might be fun, but fucking the
consequences is not wise.

Fred

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

May 14, 2009, 7:13 AM

Post #10 of 66 (1902 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.

What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.

The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

May 14, 2009, 7:20 AM

Post #11 of 66 (1901 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

> I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long
> enough
> to know that censorship is a dead issue.

It is never too late to quit doing a dumb thing. I might find gifting
someone with a nice pearl necklace a fine thing to do, but unlike
comprehensive information about sexuality, it doesn't belong in a general
purpose encyclopedia intended and promoted for the use of a young world
wide audience.

As to censorship, we censor and delete dictionary definitions and recipes
for God's sake; that is how Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not works.

Fred Bauder

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

May 14, 2009, 7:24 AM

Post #12 of 66 (1900 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not
>> a
>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>> Karma Sutra.
>
> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>
> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>

I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I'm not going to
spend hours looking for it.

I assume that when you appear in public you cover your private parts. It
does not follow that you need to cover every part of yourself.

Fred Bauder

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rarohde at gmail

May 14, 2009, 7:28 AM

Post #13 of 66 (1900 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>> Karma Sutra.
>
> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>
> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.

Though technically challenging, I've long believed that the best
answer is to develop some system similar to Categories that could be
used to flag content that is potentially objectionable on various
grounds and then provide the tools to create filtered streams that
remove that content.

I'd especially like to be able to offer schools a feed that filters
out the adult content. Obviously any system that depends on editors
to maintain the flags would be imperfect and subject to various
issues, but I do think making a good faith effort to provide
culturally sensitive variants of Wikipedia would be very useful from a
public relations standpoint and allow Wikipedia to reach audiences
that might otherwise be excluded.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

May 14, 2009, 7:31 AM

Post #14 of 66 (1907 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

2009/5/14 Robert Rohde <rarohde [at] gmail>:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
>>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
>>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>>> Karma Sutra.
>>
>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>
> Though technically challenging, I've long believed that the best
> answer is to develop some system similar to Categories that could be
> used to flag content that is potentially objectionable on various
> grounds and then provide the tools to create filtered streams that
> remove that content.

That would good. We can't choose what should and should not be seen by
our readers without violating neutrality but there is nothing stopping
them choosing for themselves.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

May 14, 2009, 7:33 AM

Post #15 of 66 (1896 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
>>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not
>>> a
>>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>>> Karma Sutra.
>>
>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>>
>
> I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I'm not going to
> spend hours looking for it.

There is no name for it because it is not false.

> I assume that when you appear in public you cover your private parts. It
> does not follow that you need to cover every part of yourself.

When I appear in public I wear clothing in keeping with the local
cultural norms. That is not neutral. I am not neutral. I have never
claimed to be and never will (except in very specific contexts). I,
however, am not Wikipedia.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fordmadoxfraud at gmail

May 14, 2009, 7:38 AM

Post #16 of 66 (1898 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

*An article such as Pearl necklace
(sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
*
I assume her family cautioned her against using the internet entirely, then?

FMF

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint> wrote:

> > This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
> > sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
> > any drawing could be.
> >
> >
> > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geo.plrd at yahoo

May 14, 2009, 8:21 AM

Post #17 of 66 (1895 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

Common courtesy, maybe?

________________________________
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:24:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not
>> a
>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>> Karma Sutra.
>
> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>
> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>

I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I'm not going to
spend hours looking for it.

I assume that when you appear in public you cover your private parts. It
does not follow that you need to cover every part of yourself.

Fred Bauder

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

brion at wikimedia

May 14, 2009, 10:29 AM

Post #18 of 66 (1903 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

El 5/14/09 7:31 PM, Thomas Dalton escribi�:
> 2009/5/14 Robert Rohde<rarohde [at] gmail>:
>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder<fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
>>>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
>>>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>>>> Karma Sutra.
>>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>>
>>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>> Though technically challenging, I've long believed that the best
>> answer is to develop some system similar to Categories that could be
>> used to flag content that is potentially objectionable on various
>> grounds and then provide the tools to create filtered streams that
>> remove that content.
>
> That would good. We can't choose what should and should not be seen by
> our readers without violating neutrality but there is nothing stopping
> them choosing for themselves.

IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter
saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should
have told her to log in and check 'no sexual imagery' in her profile"!

Slippery-slope arguments aside, it seems unfortunate that as creators of
"educational resources" we don't actually have anything that's being
created with a children's audience in mind -- Wikipedia is primarily
being created *by adults for adults*.

That's fine for us grown-ups but we're missing an important part of the
educational "market". Like it or not, part of creating educational
material for children is cultural sensitivity: you need to make
something that won't freak out their parents.

The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how
to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply
_difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find
objectionable.

Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle;
the default view is a "safe" search which excludes items which have been
marked as "adult" in nature, while making it easy to opt out of the
restricted search and get at everything if you want it.

Generally sexual imagery is the prime target since it's the biggest
hot-button "save the children" issue for most people -- many parents
wouldn't be happy to have their kid read "list of sexual positions" but
would rather they read the text than see the pictures, even if they're
drawings.

Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this
(basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for
requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently
misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct
resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which
multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely
to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.

-- brion

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgoodmanny at gmail

May 14, 2009, 11:03 AM

Post #19 of 66 (1909 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a
sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a
pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image
indicates there is something about it that needs to be shown in a
specially restrained manner. The picture might be interpreted as
implying that a woman as well as a man might enjoy the practice. When
we show pictures of people engaging in recreation, we normally do show
them enjoying it. We do this even for dangerous sports. Our treatment
of consensual sexual practices should be as for other non-harmful
human activities: we present them as part of the normal world. As far
as children & sexuality go, I do not see the picture as harmful to any
young person old enough to understand it. As far as sexual practices
go, this one is from any point of view quite innocuous. If one wants
to encourage young people to safe sex, this qualifies, though I'm
aware it seems odd to some people.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

maxh at sdf

May 14, 2009, 11:09 AM

Post #20 of 66 (1896 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

May 14, 2009, 11:43 AM

Post #21 of 66 (1906 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

2009/5/14 Brion Vibber <brion [at] wikimedia>:
> IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
> to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter
> saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should
> have told her to log in and check 'no sexual imagery' in her profile"!

Indeed, that wouldn't work. How about a link parents can click to
download an indefinite cookie blocking the things they don't like?
Easy for kids with some technical know-how to bypass, but that's
always going to be the case. They are plenty of existing options for
parents to block things from their children, we can probably learn
something from them.

> Slippery-slope arguments aside, it seems unfortunate that as creators of
> "educational resources" we don't actually have anything that's being
> created with a children's audience in mind -- Wikipedia is primarily
> being created *by adults for adults*.

Well, there are things like www.schools-wikipedia.org which is a
start, although that's from the other direction than we're talking
about (selecting good stuff, rather than deselecting bad stuff).

> The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how
> to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply
> _difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find
> objectionable.

That's why we long ago decided to be completely uncensored. It's not
just difficult, it's impossible.

> Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle;
> the default view is a "safe" search which excludes items which have been
> marked as "adult" in nature, while making it easy to opt out of the
> restricted search and get at everything if you want it.

Image searching is very different to reading an encyclopaedia, though.
You know when you're typing the search terms whether you are looking
for porn or not, and that's all the filters are really there for.
There aren't many instances where someone would be searching flickr or
google and wanting to find "adult" images when they aren't simply
looking for porn.

> Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this
> (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for
> requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently
> misused in vandalism)

How would you implement that? You can make it so "adult" images don't
load straight away and get replaced by a notice saying "Explicit image
- click here to view" or something (with an option somewhere to view
all images by default and, while you're there, you might as well make
an option to view no images by default with the same click-to-view
system). That would stop people accidentally seeing explicit images,
but it isn't going to be a major inconvenience to anyone else (the
images should be pre-loaded, so it's an instant *click* and the image
is there). Obviously, this is so easy to get around that it would
require paranoid parents to supervise their children's browsing, but
if they are that paranoid they should be doing that anyway.

However, such a system doesn't solve the problem of determining what
to censor, and I don't think that problem has a solution.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fredbaud at fairpoint

May 14, 2009, 11:45 AM

Post #22 of 66 (1898 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

> I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored.

Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of
content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for
deletion, just for a start then move on to recipes, dictionary
definitions, fiction, to say nothing of point of view editing.

However, I think the most productive approach is to create specialized
versions tailored for audiences which need information such as schools
and Muslim cultures.

Fred Bauder

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

May 14, 2009, 11:50 AM

Post #23 of 66 (1898 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud [at] fairpoint>:
>> I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored.
>
> Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of
> content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for
> deletion, just for a start then move on to recipes, dictionary
> definitions, fiction, to say nothing of point of view editing.

So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces
aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question entirely and the
answer should not be based on people being offended by images of them.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

May 14, 2009, 11:50 AM

Post #24 of 66 (1901 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

2009/5/14 Oldak Quill <oldakquill [at] gmail>:

> I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
> considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
> tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
> that basis.

I note that proposals to do blocking-oriented filtering of this sort
on Wikipedia are perennial proposals that are perennially shot down.

The obvious thing to do would be for a third party to offer a
filtering service. So far there are no examples, suggesting there is
negligible demand for such filtering in practice - many individuals
have said they want filtering, but not so much they want to do the
work themselves.

(In practice, those considering Wikipedia unsuitable for mass
consumption write their own encyclopedia site, e.g. Conservapedia or
Christopedia.)

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

May 14, 2009, 11:52 AM

Post #25 of 66 (1900 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery [In reply to]

2009/5/14 David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:

> (In practice, those considering Wikipedia unsuitable for mass
> consumption write their own encyclopedia site, e.g. Conservapedia or
> Christopedia.)

Or - how could I forget, the example of an actually good selection of
Wikipedia that's proving very popular indeed with school teachers:

http://www.schools-wikipedia.org/

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads