7 ms·

It's a conflict of interest, no matter your politics, when an organization is supposed to be a neutral purveyor of knowledge. (unless I somehow misunderstood th

It's a conflict of interest, no matter your politics, when an organization is supposed to be a neutral purveyor of knowledge. (unless I somehow misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, which is possible)

hikingsimulator 4y ago
Knowledge acquisition is not neutral per se. Wikipedia's goal is to be a peer-to-peer encyclopedia. It's not, and never will be perfect. The best thing you and I can do, instead or beyond donating, is to read Wikipedia and point out places with issues, if not become editors outright.
polygamous_bat 4y ago
Just want to point out that "neutral" doesn't always mean apolitical, even though it may be convenient to think so. Hypothetically, if in a two party system there is a "burn and ban the books" party, and a "let's really not burn the books" party, the moral obligation of a neutral purveyor of knowledge is to do everything in its power to stop the "burn the books" club. How Wikipedia is interpreting that can be questioned, but not the fact that it should try to further the cause for its existence.
- joemazerino 4y ago
  So far, I've seen both sides of the aisle look to ban books -- but only one of the sides is banning books targeting children sexuality.
  - p0pcult 4y ago
    Can you please provide an example of one of these books that is "targeting children sexuality"? A title will suffice.
    - Natsu 4y ago
      Not OP, but most of the controversy has been about age restrictions on the books "Gender Queer: A Memoir" which contains images of graphic scenes of gay sex and oral sex as well as a girl encouraged to “taste” herself by her own siblings or “Lawn Boy” which describes a man talking approvingly to his friend about having oral sex with a grown man when he was only in fourth grade. I'm not aware of any 'bans' per se, but the books have been removed from some school libraries or made subject to age restrictions. There was another list going around that was said to be satire that people retweeted seemingly unironically: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/florida-book-bans-schools-libraries/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/florida-book-bans-schools-...
      - p0pcult 4y ago
        Based on your descriptions, it's hard for me to conclude that these books are "targeting children sexuality" as the OP put it. Teens are--shock of shocks!--sometimes sexually active, even by choice. My brother was sexually active in the 4th grade. Is it that weird for literature to represent those kinds of experiences? I can see where one would make it generally unavailable to the very young, or maybe only with parental permission, but does this seem like a project to "turn kids gay" (as alleged by some one star amazon reviews)? No, lol.
        Natsu 4y ago
        > My brother was sexually active in the 4th grade. I think a lot of people would find 9-10 years old a bit young for sex. One is also generally not a 'teenager' until 13 and indeed many of the age restrictions are for materials like these books with respect to pre-teens.
        p0pcult 4y ago
        I think 9-10 years old is a bit young for sex. Did my brother? Apparently not! No one was making any claims about the ages of teenagers, just providing an anecdote that consensual sexual activity (insofar as two 4th graders can consent) can happen at ages where us older folks think it is inappropriate. Age restrictions are arbitrary. Are there some 16-year-olds I'd trust more with a vote than 25 year olds? Yes. In any case, and to reiterate my prior point, none of this seems to be "grooming" or "pedophilia."
  - scythe 4y ago
    I think it's a pretty bold exaggeration to go from "banning books from school curricula" or even "from school libraries" to "banning books period". Conservative attempts to restrict sex education are misguided, but no books are actually being banned. Personally, I tend to feel betrayed when I'm warned of a horrible thing happening and investigate to find out it just isn't so.
- seanw444 4y ago
  Neutral would be "let's burn some books." I'm not arguing that burning books is good, but it is certainly a stance biased to one side.
  - yifanl 4y ago
    Neutral doesn't mean be contrarian to everybody.
- disintegore 4y ago
  I love the idea that neutral means "status quo" and not the absence of bias, which is far from being the status quo in most cases.
kmeisthax 4y ago
Wikipedia is NPoV but that doesn't mean their funding org has to be.

hikingsimulator 4y ago

Knowledge acquisition is not neutral per se. Wikipedia's goal is to be a peer-to-peer encyclopedia. It's not, and never will be perfect. The best thing you and I can do, instead or beyond donating, is to read Wikipedia and point out places with issues, if not become editors outright.

polygamous_bat 4y ago

Just want to point out that "neutral" doesn't always mean apolitical, even though it may be convenient to think so. Hypothetically, if in a two party system there is a "burn and ban the books" party, and a "let's really not burn the books" party, the moral obligation of a neutral purveyor of knowledge is to do everything in its power to stop the "burn the books" club. How Wikipedia is interpreting that can be questioned, but not the fact that it should try to further the cause for its existence.

joemazerino 4y ago
So far, I've seen both sides of the aisle look to ban books -- but only one of the sides is banning books targeting children sexuality.
- p0pcult 4y ago
  Can you please provide an example of one of these books that is "targeting children sexuality"? A title will suffice.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    Not OP, but most of the controversy has been about age restrictions on the books "Gender Queer: A Memoir" which contains images of graphic scenes of gay sex and oral sex as well as a girl encouraged to “taste” herself by her own siblings or “Lawn Boy” which describes a man talking approvingly to his friend about having oral sex with a grown man when he was only in fourth grade. I'm not aware of any 'bans' per se, but the books have been removed from some school libraries or made subject to age restrictions. There was another list going around that was said to be satire that people retweeted seemingly unironically: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/florida-book-bans-schools-libraries/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/florida-book-bans-schools-...
    - p0pcult 4y ago
      Based on your descriptions, it's hard for me to conclude that these books are "targeting children sexuality" as the OP put it. Teens are--shock of shocks!--sometimes sexually active, even by choice. My brother was sexually active in the 4th grade. Is it that weird for literature to represent those kinds of experiences? I can see where one would make it generally unavailable to the very young, or maybe only with parental permission, but does this seem like a project to "turn kids gay" (as alleged by some one star amazon reviews)? No, lol.
      - Natsu 4y ago
        > My brother was sexually active in the 4th grade. I think a lot of people would find 9-10 years old a bit young for sex. One is also generally not a 'teenager' until 13 and indeed many of the age restrictions are for materials like these books with respect to pre-teens.
        p0pcult 4y ago
        I think 9-10 years old is a bit young for sex. Did my brother? Apparently not! No one was making any claims about the ages of teenagers, just providing an anecdote that consensual sexual activity (insofar as two 4th graders can consent) can happen at ages where us older folks think it is inappropriate. Age restrictions are arbitrary. Are there some 16-year-olds I'd trust more with a vote than 25 year olds? Yes. In any case, and to reiterate my prior point, none of this seems to be "grooming" or "pedophilia."
- scythe 4y ago
  I think it's a pretty bold exaggeration to go from "banning books from school curricula" or even "from school libraries" to "banning books period". Conservative attempts to restrict sex education are misguided, but no books are actually being banned. Personally, I tend to feel betrayed when I'm warned of a horrible thing happening and investigate to find out it just isn't so.
seanw444 4y ago
Neutral would be "let's burn some books." I'm not arguing that burning books is good, but it is certainly a stance biased to one side.
- yifanl 4y ago
  Neutral doesn't mean be contrarian to everybody.
disintegore 4y ago
I love the idea that neutral means "status quo" and not the absence of bias, which is far from being the status quo in most cases.

kmeisthax 4y ago

Wikipedia is NPoV but that doesn't mean their funding org has to be.