14 ms·

Jimmy Wales gives up administrative privileges after community backlash

41 points by derekc 16y ago

kiba 16y ago
Those "pornographic" images undoubtedly exists on articles like Sexual intercourse and other articles concerning human sexuality and sexual acts. In light of the context in which images has been placed, there has been nothing pornographic about it. Even so, I am not sure what irreparable harm can be done to kids accidental catching a glimpse of human sexual reproduction. As long as adults respond appropriately to the potentially misleading information that porn has exposed kids to, any harms that is done is prevented. I would be far more concerned about my kids visiting actual hardcore porn sites rather than reading mundane scholarly wikipedia article about human sexuality, benefit/harm to society, STDs, and other such useful information.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  First, there is an issue if an organization like a school or workplace wants to prevent the viewing of pornography. If wikipedia hosts pornography, it risks being blocked in places where it belongs. Second, there is the question of child pornography, which has been alleged. Third, your belief that "As long as adults respond appropriately to the potentially misleading information that porn has exposed kids to, any harms that is done is prevented" is not universally shared, so it isn't surprising that some people will feel differently. For all of these issues, one needs to ask oneself if the benefit from hosting a certain image is worth the drawbacks. Some images simply have no academic value.
  - jarek 16y ago
    Wikipedia hosts depictions of Muhammad, with which it risks getting blocked in entire countries. Strictly speaking they are not necessary in the articles, not the least because they're probably not historically accurate. Do you think they remove them?
    - jessriedel 16y ago
      Necessary is not the same as having academic value. I think depictions of Muhammad have significant academic value. Your point is a good one, though. I'd have to think about this more to come up with a good general principle. (I just don't think that principle is "allow all possible data to be stored on wikipedia/wikicommons".)
- tptacek 16y ago
  If you read Wales' User_talk pages on Wikimedia, you'll see that there's more to it than just topical illustrations of human sexuality articles: * There were "trolling" images of porn on random articles * There was/is a "pornography project" that was/is creating a "Who's Who" of porn stars under the rubric of the encyclopedia * It was perceived by Wales that it was becoming difficult to use the encyclopedia without potentially tripping over graphic pictures At the end of the day, Wikipedia isn't about providing a commons for people to store all the world's information. It is to build and maintain the world's best encyclopedia. There are tradeoffs involved in building an encyclopedia. For what it's worth: while I won't have a temper tantrum either way, I'm not OK with my kids seeing porn in Wikipedia. I think the project is more useful if it is making a good-faith effort to limit graphic sexual images.
  - dschobel 16y ago
    Wikipedia is at the same time full of articles on all sorts of human depravity which presumably you don't want a young child reading about. I would suggest that maybe what parents deem acceptable for their kids to consume unsupervised isn't such a great standard for what's worth studying and cataloging. On a related note, age-appropriate forks of Wikipedia might not be a bad idea considering students are, as you point out, such a large portion of its user base. Just leave the original one alone.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      The lack of much forking or repackaging of Wikipedia is one thing that's been different than anticipated. It's possibly due to its large size and high edit rate, so you'd need a large community to make a significantly different fork, and then keep it up to date. But ideally the purpose of having a free-content license is precisely to enable people to do other things with it besides just read it on wikipedia.org--- if that's the only way people are reading it, the free-content license isn't doing much.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Or, the porn partisans can create a porn-friendly fork, and leave the original alone. The question is, is the encyclopedic value of graphic sexual imagery worth the cost, which is reduced accessibility of the whole project. Wales' answer, which I agree with, is "no". At the heart of every debate about Wikipedia policy, I see the same notion: that because Wikipedia is on the Internet, and because it's open to everyone to edit, and because it's powered mostly by editors unaffiliated with the project, it "belongs" to everyone. But it doesn't. It's not a democracy! It has an agenda: building the world's greatest encyclopedia. It's rational and consistent for the project to trade openness for accessibility and quality. There's a whole rest of the Internet for the stuff that doesn't make the project's cut.
- krschultz 16y ago
  You are attacking a straw man. Does an article on STDs need a hardcore porn picture? Of course not. That's not what we're talking about here, you are attacking a straw man. From the article: "Sanger sent a letter to the FBI earlier this month outlining his concerns and identifying two specific Wikimedia Commons categories he believes violate federal obscenity law." "The first category, entitled “Pedophilia,” contains 25-30 explicit and detailed drawings of children performing sexual acts. The category was created three years ago. " "The second, “Lolicon,” provides cartoons similar in detail and depiction. One of the more egregious cartoons shows a rendering of a young child about to perform oral sex on a much older man." It's hard to defend that, or make it sound like it is "mundane".
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Clearly it would be hard to explain to a kid (especially one who has already had the birds&bees chat) why those images existed and what they depicted. It's a question that stymies me still! The problem is there is nothing technically illegal in those images. They have historical value, there is also value in keeping them as historical record. What is served by deleting them? Gratuitous pornography is, obviously, another matter - but that doesn't cover these. Because what this originally started as was a troll by Sanger - and he has ended up with the exact reaction he wanted...
gsteph22 16y ago
For being an Objectivist, Jimmy Wales sure was fond of censorship... [/AndrewRyan]
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  Sorry, did you mean to say he was fond of complying with the law?
nopassrecover 16y ago
Isn't the easy solution to require logins for particularly adult content (even if it only requires login for part of the content of an article) in the same way YouTube does? You could also enable "mouse-overs" for authenticated users so they don't see potentially "offensive" images straight away.
- sketerpot 16y ago
  That actually sounds like it would be fairly easy to add to the wiki software, and practical as well. You could even just add a cookie to remember people's preferences about adult images, the way Google Image Search remembers your "SafeSearch" preferences for a while even if you're not logged in.
  - epochwolf 16y ago
    This isn't easy to add actually. The mediawiki software, last I checked, doesn't have this capability and adding it would be a royal pita.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  I don't know if you've ever worked on Wikipedia, but in my experience, they get really, really pissed when you mention any kind of obfuscation of "objectionable" content. Of course, now that Godking Jimbo has gone an anti-porn crusade, the story might be different, but just look at the talk page on clitoris and you can see the rabidness with which they defend graphic depictions coming out of nowhere. It's not that the content shouldn't be available or that a photograph of a clit isn't appropriate for the article, it's just that unsuspecting users may not want to be innocently clicking "Random Article" and end up with a picture of a vagina on their screen, you know? But the Wikipedia people don't know.
_delirium 16y ago
Fwiw, Wales posted a comment on the CNET version of this story, alleging that the Fox News article that all these stories are based on (incl. VentureBeat's) is misleading: http://news.cnet.com/8618-1023_3-20005082.html?communityId=2108&targetCommunityId=2108&blogId=93&messageId=9385146 http://news.cnet.com/8618-1023_3-20005082.html?communityId=2...

41 points by derekc 16y ago

kiba 16y ago

Those "pornographic" images undoubtedly exists on articles like Sexual intercourse and other articles concerning human sexuality and sexual acts. In light of the context in which images has been placed, there has been nothing pornographic about it. Even so, I am not sure what irreparable harm can be done to kids accidental catching a glimpse of human sexual reproduction. As long as adults respond appropriately to the potentially misleading information that porn has exposed kids to, any harms that is done is prevented. I would be far more concerned about my kids visiting actual hardcore porn sites rather than reading mundane scholarly wikipedia article about human sexuality, benefit/harm to society, STDs, and other such useful information.

jessriedel 16y ago
First, there is an issue if an organization like a school or workplace wants to prevent the viewing of pornography. If wikipedia hosts pornography, it risks being blocked in places where it belongs. Second, there is the question of child pornography, which has been alleged. Third, your belief that "As long as adults respond appropriately to the potentially misleading information that porn has exposed kids to, any harms that is done is prevented" is not universally shared, so it isn't surprising that some people will feel differently. For all of these issues, one needs to ask oneself if the benefit from hosting a certain image is worth the drawbacks. Some images simply have no academic value.
- jarek 16y ago
  Wikipedia hosts depictions of Muhammad, with which it risks getting blocked in entire countries. Strictly speaking they are not necessary in the articles, not the least because they're probably not historically accurate. Do you think they remove them?
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    Necessary is not the same as having academic value. I think depictions of Muhammad have significant academic value. Your point is a good one, though. I'd have to think about this more to come up with a good general principle. (I just don't think that principle is "allow all possible data to be stored on wikipedia/wikicommons".)
tptacek 16y ago
If you read Wales' User_talk pages on Wikimedia, you'll see that there's more to it than just topical illustrations of human sexuality articles: * There were "trolling" images of porn on random articles * There was/is a "pornography project" that was/is creating a "Who's Who" of porn stars under the rubric of the encyclopedia * It was perceived by Wales that it was becoming difficult to use the encyclopedia without potentially tripping over graphic pictures At the end of the day, Wikipedia isn't about providing a commons for people to store all the world's information. It is to build and maintain the world's best encyclopedia. There are tradeoffs involved in building an encyclopedia. For what it's worth: while I won't have a temper tantrum either way, I'm not OK with my kids seeing porn in Wikipedia. I think the project is more useful if it is making a good-faith effort to limit graphic sexual images.
- dschobel 16y ago
  Wikipedia is at the same time full of articles on all sorts of human depravity which presumably you don't want a young child reading about. I would suggest that maybe what parents deem acceptable for their kids to consume unsupervised isn't such a great standard for what's worth studying and cataloging. On a related note, age-appropriate forks of Wikipedia might not be a bad idea considering students are, as you point out, such a large portion of its user base. Just leave the original one alone.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    The lack of much forking or repackaging of Wikipedia is one thing that's been different than anticipated. It's possibly due to its large size and high edit rate, so you'd need a large community to make a significantly different fork, and then keep it up to date. But ideally the purpose of having a free-content license is precisely to enable people to do other things with it besides just read it on wikipedia.org--- if that's the only way people are reading it, the free-content license isn't doing much.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Or, the porn partisans can create a porn-friendly fork, and leave the original alone. The question is, is the encyclopedic value of graphic sexual imagery worth the cost, which is reduced accessibility of the whole project. Wales' answer, which I agree with, is "no". At the heart of every debate about Wikipedia policy, I see the same notion: that because Wikipedia is on the Internet, and because it's open to everyone to edit, and because it's powered mostly by editors unaffiliated with the project, it "belongs" to everyone. But it doesn't. It's not a democracy! It has an agenda: building the world's greatest encyclopedia. It's rational and consistent for the project to trade openness for accessibility and quality. There's a whole rest of the Internet for the stuff that doesn't make the project's cut.
krschultz 16y ago
You are attacking a straw man. Does an article on STDs need a hardcore porn picture? Of course not. That's not what we're talking about here, you are attacking a straw man. From the article: "Sanger sent a letter to the FBI earlier this month outlining his concerns and identifying two specific Wikimedia Commons categories he believes violate federal obscenity law." "The first category, entitled “Pedophilia,” contains 25-30 explicit and detailed drawings of children performing sexual acts. The category was created three years ago. " "The second, “Lolicon,” provides cartoons similar in detail and depiction. One of the more egregious cartoons shows a rendering of a young child about to perform oral sex on a much older man." It's hard to defend that, or make it sound like it is "mundane".
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Clearly it would be hard to explain to a kid (especially one who has already had the birds&bees chat) why those images existed and what they depicted. It's a question that stymies me still! The problem is there is nothing technically illegal in those images. They have historical value, there is also value in keeping them as historical record. What is served by deleting them? Gratuitous pornography is, obviously, another matter - but that doesn't cover these. Because what this originally started as was a troll by Sanger - and he has ended up with the exact reaction he wanted...

gsteph22 16y ago

For being an Objectivist, Jimmy Wales sure was fond of censorship... [/AndrewRyan]

sliverstorm 16y ago
Sorry, did you mean to say he was fond of complying with the law?

nopassrecover 16y ago

Isn't the easy solution to require logins for particularly adult content (even if it only requires login for part of the content of an article) in the same way YouTube does? You could also enable "mouse-overs" for authenticated users so they don't see potentially "offensive" images straight away.

sketerpot 16y ago
That actually sounds like it would be fairly easy to add to the wiki software, and practical as well. You could even just add a cookie to remember people's preferences about adult images, the way Google Image Search remembers your "SafeSearch" preferences for a while even if you're not logged in.
- epochwolf 16y ago
  This isn't easy to add actually. The mediawiki software, last I checked, doesn't have this capability and adding it would be a royal pita.
cookiecaper 16y ago
I don't know if you've ever worked on Wikipedia, but in my experience, they get really, really pissed when you mention any kind of obfuscation of "objectionable" content. Of course, now that Godking Jimbo has gone an anti-porn crusade, the story might be different, but just look at the talk page on clitoris and you can see the rabidness with which they defend graphic depictions coming out of nowhere. It's not that the content shouldn't be available or that a photograph of a clit isn't appropriate for the article, it's just that unsuspecting users may not want to be innocently clicking "Random Article" and end up with a picture of a vagina on their screen, you know? But the Wikipedia people don't know.

_delirium 16y ago

Fwiw, Wales posted a comment on the CNET version of this story, alleging that the Fox News article that all these stories are based on (incl. VentureBeat's) is misleading: http://news.cnet.com/8618-1023_3-20005082.html?communityId=2108&targetCommunityId=2108&blogId=93&messageId=9385146 http://news.cnet.com/8618-1023_3-20005082.html?communityId=2...