Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Michael Peel wrote: On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote: Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia have ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image galleries, and stubs-a-plenty. I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong. They're not forbidden: they're just in a different location (Wiktionary and Commons). Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered. Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that should be presented by the images. Could you clarify what you mean by stubs are frowned upon? The only reason I can think of for that is that it would be better if they were developed into better articles rather than left as stubs... People dislike stubs. Sometimes, stubs get deleted because they have too little information, even while they are about a valid topic. Sometimes, stubs get merged into larger articles with suspicious choice of topic. Sometimes, stubs get converted into redirects to articles on similar topics, where information contained in the stubs is eventually lost. All of this is done in cases where a traditional encyclopedia would have stubs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote: Michael Peel wrote: On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote: Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia have ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image galleries, and stubs-a-plenty. I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong. They're not forbidden: they're just in a different location (Wiktionary and Commons). Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered. Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that should be presented by the images. In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing off the authors' photography skills. ;-) (BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically, e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will decide to remove them after this email...) Could you clarify what you mean by stubs are frowned upon? The only reason I can think of for that is that it would be better if they were developed into better articles rather than left as stubs... People dislike stubs. Sometimes, stubs get deleted because they have too little information, even while they are about a valid topic. Sometimes, stubs get merged into larger articles with suspicious choice of topic. Sometimes, stubs get converted into redirects to articles on similar topics, where information contained in the stubs is eventually lost. All of this is done in cases where a traditional encyclopedia would have stubs. All I can say to that is that it's a great pity if that happens... Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Brion Vibber wrote: 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. ... 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. Do you have no shame? Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds? We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get? A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned was because he couldn't speak the queens english properly. Really! Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Michael Peel wrote: On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote: Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered. Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that should be presented by the images. In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very And aterwards, I'd expect WP:AFD to be applied. surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing off the authors' photography skills. ;-) (BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically, e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will decide to remove them after this email...) I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you will find such a gallery is encyclopedic. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote: Michael Peel wrote: On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote: Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered. Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that should be presented by the images. In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very And aterwards, I'd expect WP:AFD to be applied. surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing off the authors' photography skills. ;-) (BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically, e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will decide to remove them after this email...) I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you will find such a gallery is encyclopedic. I have checked, and the deleted visual gallery is identical to the one at the bottom of this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ramphastidae I think we benefit from using Commons as an auxiliary reference work specialising in galleries. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Hi David, All, On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 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. This is just a sub-item of a pet peeve of mine. Why aren't there successfull mirrors for reading Wikipedia? There is obviously room for enhancement in the Wikipedia reading experience, and a customizable parental control would be only one of possibilities. If done well enough, users would tolerate mild advertising in exchange and so it seems to be a valid business model. WMF should even be thankful for lessening the load to their servers. Regards, Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
John Vandenberg wrote: I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you will find such a gallery is encyclopedic. I have checked, and the deleted visual gallery is identical to the one at the bottom of this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ramphastidae I'm glad someone saved it :) However in some cases, number of images in such a gallery may be too big to merge it with a page on a similar topic. I think we benefit from using Commons as an auxiliary reference work specialising in galleries. Commons is not an encyclopedia. Galleries of this type do not exist on Commons, and do not really belong there. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things unacceptable? Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: From: Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:59 PM Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't censored because it allows pictures of penises is fooling himself. Wikipedia is absolutely censored from images its editors find disgusting. snip sexuality rant On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: I think our efforts would be better focused making all of our content better suited for re-usability by different tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which tastes need to be targeted. Rather than creating a mirror ourselves for No Nudity and leaving the whatever existing stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of the content. It would definitely be a good start to create a hierarchy of categories for the use of private parties who would like to censor their own Internet access, or that of those they have responsibility for. The way to go would be neutral designations like Category:Pictures containing genitals, Category:Pictures containing breasts, Category:Depictions of Muhammad, and so on. This strictly adds value to the project. Then we would pick a set of categories to be blocked by default. Blocked images wouldn't be hidden entirely, just replaced with a link explaining why they were blocked. Clicking the link would cause them to display in place, and inline options would be provided to show all images in that category in the future (using preferences for users, otherwise cookies). Users could block any categories of images they liked from their profile. To begin with, we could preserve the status quo by disabling only very gory or otherwise really disgusting images by default. More reasonably, we could follow every other major website in the developed world, and by default disable display of any image containing male or female genitalia, or sex acts. Users who wanted the images could, again, get them with a single click, so there is no loss of information -- which is, after all, what we exist to provide. Wikipedia does not aim to push ideologies of sexual liberation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds? We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get? A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned was because he couldn't speak the queens english properly. Really! Hmm! Some would argue that ever since Noah Webster no American speaks the Queen's English properly. :-) Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
El 5/14/09 4:14 PM, Mike.lifeguard escribió: While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example, Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that the books are appropriate for children. While I despise censorship (cf my recent posts, or my statements on Commons) this is commendable in my mind. Though I don't participate in generating content for Wikijunior on a regular basis, I do think it is a worthwhile project, and is an important alternative to be mentioned during such discussions. Spiffy! Sounds like it needs more lovin' and attention, I forgot it was even there. ;) There is a safe sandbox at Wikijunior (well, semi-safe, English Wikibooks still gets vandalism, though we now have FlaggedRevs [which could use a config change; it's in bugzilla :D] Found it in the general sea of issues and have moved it to Rob's work queue. :) -- brion ) where people concerned with such things can generate appropriately-censored content for children. -Mike On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:29 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote: 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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: 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 (oldakqu...@gmail.com) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
El 5/14/09 7:31 PM, Thomas Dalton escribió: 2009/5/14 Robert Rohderaro...@gmail.com: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/14 Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net: 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: (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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 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. Yes. Editing is censoring, therefore there is no such separate thing as censoring, therefore the decision to put a picture on [[Autofellatio]] (WARNING: contains photograph) is an editorial decision. Which it in fact was. Hit send too soon - The point is that disgusting or potentially morally corrupting or sacreligious have consistently been roundly rejected as editorial criteria. So it doesn't matter if someone tries to argue that editing is censorship, their editorial urge to do something others would call censoring has *still* consistently been roundly rejected. As I said, the most likely way to get such an effort off the ground is for someone to put together a filtered selection outside the live working wiki. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 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. Yes. Editing is censoring, therefore there is no such separate thing as censoring, therefore the decision to put a picture on [[Autofellatio]] (WARNING: contains photograph) is an editorial decision. Which it in fact was. Hit send too soon - The point is that disgusting or potentially morally corrupting or sacreligious have consistently been roundly rejected as editorial criteria. So it doesn't matter if someone tries to argue that editing is censorship, their editorial urge to do something others would call censoring has *still* consistently been roundly rejected. As I said, the most likely way to get such an effort off the ground is for someone to put together a filtered selection outside the live working wiki. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages. A simple this image may be inappropriate (show/show all from now on) button would go a long way and would be ridiculously easy to implement. The hard part is convincing enwiki that they're not always right. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com: Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages. I don't accept that notion. I fail to see how children are harmed by such images. If we were to implement any kind of censorship it would be to keep parents happy, not to protect children. A simple this image may be inappropriate (show/show all from now on) button would go a long way and would be ridiculously easy to implement. The hard part is convincing enwiki that they're not always right. The technical implementation is easy, deciding which images to hide like that is impossible. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com: Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages. I don't accept that notion. I fail to see how children are harmed by such images. If we were to implement any kind of censorship it would be to keep parents happy, not to protect children. And? What's wrong with pleasing the parents? I would rather do that and have children be able to access all the good content Wikipedia has than have their parents just make Wikipedia off-limits because of a small subset of the overall content. A simple this image may be inappropriate (show/show all from now on) button would go a long way and would be ridiculously easy to implement. The hard part is convincing enwiki that they're not always right. The technical implementation is easy, deciding which images to hide like that is impossible. Is it? Blanket-labeling all images depicting nudity as inappropriate would be pretty straightforward and would alleviate the majority of concerns. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/5/14 Oldak Quill oldakqu...@gmail.com: 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. Part of the problem is there is no good free software to do it. Adblock can sort of be used to do it but only to an extent. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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! snip I would suggest that a child-safe version of Wikipedia be cloaked with its own domain syntax in a way similar to secure.wikimedia.org. That would allow schools and parents to block the main site while providing access to an alternative that they might find more acceptable. Since domain level filtering is already commonly employed by many software packages I don't think that would be an unreasonable thing to ask. Choosing what filtered views of Wikipedia to provide at a domain level would require some discussion of course as well as some form of social agreement about what content belongs behind the filter. Not easy issues at all, but making a good faith effort to address them would be huge in my mind. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Fred is conflating guidelines on style with guidelines on content. Articles about food items are not banned. Articles about fiction are not banned. Fred is advocating banning a *class of articles.* On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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! snip I would suggest that a child-safe version of Wikipedia be cloaked with its own domain syntax in a way similar to secure.wikimedia.org. That would allow schools and parents to block the main site while providing access to an alternative that they might find more acceptable. Since domain level filtering is already commonly employed by many software packages I don't think that would be an unreasonable thing to ask. Choosing what filtered views of Wikipedia to provide at a domain level would require some discussion of course as well as some form of social agreement about what content belongs behind the filter. Not easy issues at all, but making a good faith effort to address them would be huge in my mind. -Robert Rohde I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population community is long overdue. -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com: I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population community is long overdue. Schools Wikipedia, or similar distributions. What you're talking about with reach out is limiting the contents of the live working site. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/14 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com: I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population community is long overdue. Schools Wikipedia, or similar distributions. What you're talking about with reach out is limiting the contents of the live working site. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Which have shown time and again that forks/fractures/split offs/new versions of Wikipedia don't work. They may find usage in a small niche, but they'll never be a huge deal. OTOH, the WMF saying Hey parents/teachers/etc, we've got a version with all the nudity removed so you can show your kids/students/etc would be massively popular. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com: And? What's wrong with pleasing the parents? I would rather do that and have children be able to access all the good content Wikipedia has than have their parents just make Wikipedia off-limits because of a small subset of the overall content. Nothing is wrong with it in principle, but I think we need to be clear about why we would be doing this. Would we be doing it because *we* think children should be protected from these images or because we want to please parents who think that? While there is no difference to what we would actually do, our reasons would be relevant from a PR point of view. The technical implementation is easy, deciding which images to hide like that is impossible. Is it? Blanket-labeling all images depicting nudity as inappropriate would be pretty straightforward and would alleviate the majority of concerns. If you label nude images as inappropriate, are you also going to label images of Muhammad as inappropriate? Or any of the numerous other things that people find offensive? At the moment we can respond to calls for the removal of such images with a simple Wikipedia is not censored. If you start censoring it, you then have the choose who it is and isn't acceptable to offend, and I really don't think we should be doing that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: 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. I don't think it's so straightforward. While I agree that a clinical approach has drawbacks, the whole point of such an approach to, e.g., sexual content is to avoid implicit value judgments. Compare the pearl necklace photo with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Semfac01.png ; neither is clinical, but either one, I would argue, has the potential to violate NPOV unless properly contextualized and captioned. In this case, having a single pearl necklace image with woman who appears to enjoy it may carry the message not just that a woman as well as a man might enjoy the practice, but that a woman should or usually does enjoy it. And some cultural critics have argued that some sex acts that have been emphasized in mainstream pornography normalize humiliation of women through sex (see [[Facial (sex act)]] for some discussion of this). My point is that a sex-positive message may be even more problematic than a clinical one; if every sex act is illustrated with the subjects appearing to enjoy it, that gives the implicit message that, e.g., women are equally likely to enjoy any of them--which is manifestly not the case. But of course this is mostly a moot point. Our sexology coverage really weak, and nuances of images and POV are minor compared to textual deficiencies in sex articles. -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: From: Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:04 PM On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/14 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com: I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population community is long overdue. Schools Wikipedia, or similar distributions. What you're talking about with reach out is limiting the contents of the live working site. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Which have shown time and again that forks/fractures/split offs/new versions of Wikipedia don't work. They may find usage in a small niche, but they'll never be a huge deal. OTOH, the WMF saying Hey parents/teachers/etc, we've got a version with all the nudity removed so you can show your kids/students/etc would be massively popular. If there is a massive market for this, then why hasn't such a mirror already been created? I am serious here. Is there something that acting as a stumbling block to a third-party creating a SafeForKidsPedia mirror? Our content is supposed to be easily reused by groups with different target audiences than Wikipedia, so why isn't it happening? What can we do to make the content more easily re-usable for different purposes? I think our efforts would be better focused making all of our content better suited for re-usability by different tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which tastes need to be targeted. Rather than creating a mirror ourselves for No Nudity and leaving the whatever existing stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of the content. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: If there is a massive market for this, then why hasn't such a mirror already been created? I am serious here. Is there something that acting as a stumbling block to a third-party creating a SafeForKidsPedia mirror? Our content is supposed to be easily reused by groups with different target audiences than Wikipedia, so why isn't it happening? What can we do to make the content more easily re-usable for different purposes? I think our efforts would be better focused making all of our content better suited for re-usability by different tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which tastes need to be targeted. Rather than creating a mirror ourselves for No Nudity and leaving the whatever existing stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of the content. Birgitte SB Yes, the two big stumbling blocks for making mirrors are: 1) No recent good full dump of enwiki (last complete one was Jan '07) 2) That amount of data is impractical to import to the target database. From personal experiences, it is nearly impossible to work with the enwiki dump. I've been trying to get the last good dump imported to a database as an exercise in futility for several months now. My experiences thus far have been mostly annoying. Trying to fork needs a good base of data to start from (even if it is 2 1/2 years old). If you can't start there, it's nearly impossible, as importing page-by-page is entirely impractical and probably impossible (can you import faster than pages are being edited?) -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com: Yes, the two big stumbling blocks for making mirrors are: 1) No recent good full dump of enwiki (last complete one was Jan '07) Why do you need a full dump? The most recent versions should be plenty. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:44, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population community is long overdue. I agree only so long as such outreach does not interfere with my more-libertarian-than-the-general-population use of the website. -- Mark [[en:User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
David Gerard hett schreven: (c.f. the earlier proposal for a Victims of Soviet Repression wiki - nice idea, but utterly unsuited to WMF through utter lack of neutrality.) http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ does still work by the way. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Obviously not; here we are discussing it. One wonders if we actually did learn any lessons during the Enlightenment... -Mike On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:04 -0400, The Cunctator wrote: 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.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: 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 cimonav...@gmail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Actually, I would argue that we shouldn't censor for principled reasons. Supposing it were the case that we could safely censor only sexual content with no slippery slope, we still shouldn't do so because it is wrong regardless what the practical consequences may or may not be. That said, a more utilitarian argument may be necessary where we have contributors who reject these basic values. -Mike On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 15:13 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example, Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that the books are appropriate for children. While I despise censorship (cf my recent posts, or my statements on Commons) this is commendable in my mind. Though I don't participate in generating content for Wikijunior on a regular basis, I do think it is a worthwhile project, and is an important alternative to be mentioned during such discussions. There is a safe sandbox at Wikijunior (well, semi-safe, English Wikibooks still gets vandalism, though we now have FlaggedRevs [which could use a config change; it's in bugzilla :D]) where people concerned with such things can generate appropriately-censored content for children. -Mike On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:29 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote: 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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Re : This from brion; On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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. .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 This is exceptionally heartening from my perspective - I believe a very simple and straightforward system like this would help a great deal. It is of course a great strength of wiki-processes to be able to allow large groups of volunteers to maintain appropriate image descriptive tagging which could power such a system - I've said before that I'm a little surprised that it's not embraced as a good way forward - but either ways, it's a good thing in my book. I believe this would be a valuable (and necessary) software addition from the foundation - is it really a fairly simple technical implementation, brion? others? cheers, Peter, PM. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
