What Should We Do About Wikipedia's Porn Problem?

Larry Sanger writes "In 2011, the Wikimedia Board committed to installing a 'controversial content' filter even weaker than Google's SafeSearch, as proposed by the '2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content.' Since then, after growing opposition by some Wikipedians, some board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Nevertheless, Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn and other material most parents don't want their kids stumbling across. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. Nevertheless, children remain some of Wikipedia's heaviest users. Jimmy Wales has recently reiterated his support for such a filter, but no work is being done on it, and the Foundation has not yet issued any statement about whether they intend to continue work on it." (In case it isn't obvious from the headline and summary, these articles discuss subject matter that may not be appropriate for workplace reading.)

Comments

Not a problem

[Hatta]

I've never seen porn on Wikipedia, because I've never looked for it. The fact that the porn is more highly accessed than other types of content indicates that we're not talking about accidental encounters. I don't see what the problem is.

Re:Not a problem

[Soilworker]

Wow didnt know that Jesus loved anal sex with women...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anal_Intercourse_Artwork.jpg

Re:Not a problem

[chicago_scott]

I've been using Wikipedia for years and I've never seen any porn. Can somebody help a brother out?

Re:Not a problem

[YodasEvilTwin]

The higher rate implies the extra views are not due to accidents, but it says absolutely nothing about the actual number of accidental views. I'm sure kids stumble across stuff there. (And it's not like purposeful access is particularly good for kids either.) Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia. It's a useful educational resource and it would be sad to see it banned just because some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.

Re:Not a problem

[epw]

I agree. I've never seen any porn on Wikipedia, but if I went looking for it I would expect there to at least be a sample or two. If you don't like seeing something, don't go looking for it.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying if I go to wikipedia and search for anal intercourse artwork i might find some? what a disgrace!

Re:Not a problem

[thesameguy]

Indeed. Until I read this headline, I didn't even know there was pornographic material on Wikipedia. I guess I assumed it must be there somewhere, but it's certainly not an in-your-face problem. I take exception on behalf of Jimmy Wales at the notion that anyone would concern themselves with a "problem" on his website. Nobody is forcing anyone to use wikipedia for anything, and the notion that the population at large has to swoop in and filter a private resource that is shared freely is preposterous. If you don't want your kids seeing porn on wikipedia, don't let them use wikipedia. If you would like to change how wikipedia works, how about you send the guy a wad of cash to help him make those changes. "OH NO! This free stuff doesn't work the way I want it to!" SHADDUP!

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

How many mass graves, lynchings, executions, etc., have you seen on Wikipedia? Porn has never hurt a single person, while the violent images on Wikipedia could actually cause psychological damage (and make you realize that humanity really fucking sucks).

But we have to filter the pr0n! Think of the children!

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The craziest thing about that is how long they had to hold the pose for the painter.

Re:Not a problem

[YodasEvilTwin]

Sorry, that should be illegal to allow access to sites that don't filter porn, which currently includes Wikipedia.

Re:Not a problem

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Fair enough, but why should this be different from any other Wiki data issue -- just let page/picture page editors flip a bit and leave it up to the review process?

Re:Not a problem

[anared]

Still, if there was a filter like this to be deployed, it most definitely should be OFF by default. None of this nonsense like with Google image search having to take the filter off every single time searching for something.

Re:Not a problem

[YodasEvilTwin]

Yes, in the age of 24/7 internet access it is entirely feasible to keep your kids off Wikipedia, especially at school and so on. How do you know the proponents of this filter haven't donated to Wikipedia? I personally don't see the entitlement angle here, and it's really not difficult to add one more user setting and one more category for pages.

Re:Not a problem

[Hatta]

And it's not like purposeful access is particularly good for kids either.

What evidence is there that porn is bad for children?

Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia.

That's not Wikipedia's fault. Let the ignorant savages remain ignorant savages if that's what they want.

some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.

I don't understand the difference either. The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content. That's censorship.

Re:Not a problem

[cheekyjohnson]

Porn turns children into rapists. Much like video games turn them into murderers.

Re:Not a problem

[ThatsMyNick]

Search for forefinger (obviously NSFW) and find porn.

Re:Not a problem

[cheekyjohnson]

just because some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.

No, if it was banned, it would be because of idiotic laws and policies, not Wikipedians.

Re:Not a problem

[Githaron]

Good or bad. If people are spamming the site with it, it is still a nuisance.

Re:Not a problem

[fermion]

I second this. This is not like google where innocuous searches will lead to objectionable material because of the market driven nature of searches. Firms and google wants porn on search results as it will lead to click throughs and profits. Therefore the filter is necessary for googles survival.

OTOH, Wikipedia has no such problem. Articles are not competing Against each other for clicks. Furthermore one thing that is superior to other ebncyclopedia is that controversial content can be hosted without consumer and retailer pushback. I hate to say , but this is one of those parent problems. Monitor your kids, install a filter, join a good sexual health program early so kids do not have to learn about sex on the street.

Re:Not a problem

[LateArthurDent]

Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia.

That is indeed a problem. A problem we need to fix with our puritanical society.

I'm sure kids stumble across stuff there.

From what I've been able to tell, it's not exactly about "stumbling" as it is, "this is relevant to the topic of the page." If you're searching for topics on anatomy, for example, pictures are appropriate. The fact that a picture of say, an eye, is appropriate and pictures of genitals are not is a problem with our culture, not wikipedia. It's all just normal human anatomy.

Same goes for other topics that are not considered appropriate. If you're old enough to know to search for it, you're old enough to find out about it. If your parents didn't prepare you for it by the time that you're curious about it, they've fucked up. Talk to your kids early and often, or they're going to find the information before you've had a chance to give them your moral views on the topic at hand.

Re:Not a problem

[YodasEvilTwin]

That's not Wikipedia's fault. Let the ignorant savages remain ignorant savages if that's what they want. And what about the people subject to laws they disagree with? You might say "f*ck 'em", I would not. The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content. Let's use your line: What evidence is there for that? It's a proposed opt-in filter, mind you. I don't see how it's different from any other categorization. Categorization is useful across the board, IMO.

Re:Not a problem

[X0563511]

The trick being that it's supposed to be consensual.

If you tell me to punch you in the face, would you put it on the same level as my punching a random passer-by in the face?

Re:Not a problem

[neoshroom]

Don't blame me. You asked for it!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dede_Cucumber_0433.jpg

It's less on Wikipedia itself and more in the images that people upload to Wikipedia that can be accessed through certain searches. The problem is some of the searches, like "cucumber" in this case, are innocuous at face value.

Re:Not a problem

[X0563511]

Agreed. Shame something couldn't be worked out in a way that views coming from a school or other organization requesting it be prevented from reading 'flagged' media. This way the rest of us can continue with it as-is, and the schools get to filter out the objectionable content.

Re:Not a problem

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I use Wikipedia extensively, often wasting hours on mammoth wiki-trips that lead all over the place. I can report that I very rarely come across porn of any description.

Possible exceptions to this rule are: Tales of scandals involving mistresses/concubines, etc in historical articles, and passing references to homosexuality in articles related to Great Britain.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not porn, that's clearly educational material.

Re:Not a problem

[doston]

Wow didnt know that Jesus loved anal sex with women...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anal_Intercourse_Artwork.jpg

Yeah, keyword "ARTWORK". It's how some people (mainly artists) express themselves.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it was just my area as a kid, but porn was the holy grail from 1st grade to 6th. Almost nobody knew what sex was, those that did primarily used euphemisms and the number of people who had sloppy parents/uncles/siblings leaving porn around were few and far between.

Plus porn totally saved me from hooking up with some girl and making a mistake or two, so I'd say overall it's been a net plus for society! :D

Seriously the shit people get bent out of shape over is slowly making me think we should reinvigorate american industry the old fashioned way: Pharmaceuticals for mental health problems.

Not that anybody could afford them at current prices :D

Eww, captcha was 'monogamy'.

Re:Not a problem

[Hatta]

The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content. Let's use your line: What evidence is there for that?

Observe the MPAA ratings system. Voluntary ratings system, nothing is censored, only categorized. Still, this affects the kind of content we see, and movies regularly self-censor to get a lower rating.

Re:Not a problem

[Hatta]

So what you are saying is, you have no evidence?

Re:Not a problem

[doston]

Um, what? A lot of porn involves violence, in case you didn't know.

"A lot". Got statistics on that? What part is violent? The multiple interracial gang bangs, or hard nipple tweaking? Is that violence? Is a huge cock stuffed into a small Asian woman too violent? Should legislate a ban on double anal? After all, it looks terribly uncomfortable...violent even. I guess we'd also have to define what "violent" in porn actually is. Is it all just violent because it's not on the wedding night and missionary position? Maybe we should ban sex outside marriage. This should definitely be legislated and there should be a massive witch hunt on Wiki, too.

Re:Not a problem

[thesameguy]

Are you kidding me? When I was a kid my porn didn't require electricity, was reasonably water resistant and completely shock proof because it was on paper. There was *always* a guy at the convenience store who would sell to minors and there was 'always* some kid with a father or brother who wouldn't miss a Hustler or two so it's not like it was tough to get. And yet, somehow, despite being completely portable and usable anywhere my parents managed to do a reasonably good job of keeping it out of my hands. Are you telling me that in 2012 where porn requires electricity to power the screen and some sort of subscription (like an ISP) to get to it, the job is now somehow more difficult? We used to have to run out to the farthest reaches of the baseball field to crowd around Sexual Fantasy and they still found us. You're saying sitting in the library at school is somehow stealthier? The reason why Wikipedia is a problem is because modern parents think the internet is like TV and a perfectly good baby sitter as long as you don't subscribe to the premium channels. Turns out that just because both technologies show up on a screen, they aren't actually the same. Just like the library was 30 years ago when kids could look up foul words in the Oxford Dictionary or sex in romance novels or violence in World Book, the internet requires guidance and oversight by parents and other authority figures. I gained an amazing vocabulary of dirty words and depraved acts from printed material when I was a kid, but I didn't know how to properly apply them til my dad taught me.

Re:Not a problem

[arth1]

It's a useful educational resource and it would be sad to see it banned just because some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.

I don't understand the difference either. If someone wants filtering, let them add it on their end, else it is censorship and bigotry too -- applying your own mores to change other people's experience. Flip the switch on your side of the connection.

It's like ranting about a family restaurant listing beer and wine on their menu. You don't have to order it. The main difference is that unlike sex, alcohol has been shown to be harmful.

If a kid hits puberty without knowing anything about sex but knows everything about murder, I'd say the parents belong in jail.

Re:Not a problem

[doston]

Good or bad. If people are spamming the site with it, it is still a nuisance.

A nuisance for whom? I'm on wiki several times per day and have never run across it. I wasn't on Wikipedia searching for interracial gang bang with double penetration. I guess if the kids decide to search for "massive black cock". they might find it. Well, let me see. I'll do a wiki search for that and see what comes up. OK here's the result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_(chicken) What a scandal.

Re:Not a problem

[Hatta]

Ok, then explain it to me. Explain to me why you are a better judge of what I should see than I am. Then explain to me why the same argument doesn't apply with our positions reversed.

I am absolutely unaware of any benefits censorship yields. I have never learned anything and thought, "gee, I wish they would have censored that". The only valid response to information you don't like is to counter it with your own information. Anything else and you are a tyrant.

Re:Not a problem

[tqk]

Good or bad. If people are spamming the site with it, it is still a nuisance.

From what I've seen so far, a fair number of Wikipedians don't consider it spam.

Re:Not a problem

[ToastedRhino]

While that might be true, most MPAA-rated movies are made for profit and therefore need to reach as wide an audience as possible. And, wouldn't you know it, most theaters wont play films mot rated by the MPAA. Wikipedia doesn't have that problem.

Also, are you unaware of these things called "pornographic films?" I hear they're rather popular.

If this proposed filter was opt-out or mandatory I'd agree with the sentiment you seem to be trying to defend, but it's not. It's a tool adults can use at their discretion to help keep kids from seeing sexually explicit material. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Not a problem

[grriffin]

Sorry but that example doesn't seem relevant. The reason MPAA ratings cause movies to "self-sensor" is because they are out to make money, and want to target a demographic (or as large of a demographic as possible). Which tells you there are a lot of people that like to limit what they watch by the categories the MPAA uses. Wikipedia is going to be less-susceptible to that because there isn't money to be made targeting a demographic.

Re:Not a problem

[arth1]

Yes, I agree. That is harmful.
To the table.

It's no more damaging than if she had the cucumber in her mouth. Probably even less, cause the mouth isn't built to stretch.

It's a silly picture, and I can't think of which page it would belong on. Puerile_Humor perhaps? Or vegetaphilia? Or Religious_Phobias?

Re:Not a problem

[tqk]

Listen to you, same old "durr, porn's not bad for kids!" nonsense.

Listen to you, in the same camp as those horrified about a bit of female nipple shown on network TV. Ever noticed that pretty much all humans have a couple? Wanna outlaw mirrors now?

Re:Not a problem

[Kielistic]

"A lot" in the relative sense that 0.5% of porn is still a huge amount...

Re:Not a problem

[Hatta]

As for being in prison, my only guess is that you think watching porn makes children rapists or something, because otherwise I don't see how that leads them to prison.

To be fair to the GP post, he was suggesting that I should show porn to my kids. That would result in me going to prison, and presumably since I'm such a terrible parent, that would result in my children being better off, ironically proving the point that porn can be beneficial to children.

It was almost clever and funny, if it weren't so wrong headed.

Note that I never claimed that porn was good for children, nor did I claim that porn was not bad for children. I've simply never seen any evidence that passive exposure to porn, or active curiosity about porn, causes any sort of problem for children of any age. If it's so obvious that porn is bad for kids, there should be plenty of evidence, right? So where is it?

For the record, I have no children, and will never have any children. But if I did, porn would be way, way down on my list of concerns. Exposure to puritanical conservativism would be a much, much bigger concern. But in either case I would not react with censorship, but providing context where needed.

My suspicion is that prohibition without evidence of harm causes far more harm than any of the things that get prohibited. But I don't have any evidence for that.

Re:Not a problem

[arth1]

Search for forefinger (obviously NSFW) and find porn.

I'm more worried that one of the image results is for an automatic rifle. That seems far more harmful.

Anyhow, your example seems somewhat contrived. I'd suspect that those who actually wanted to know about fingers would look up "finger" in regular wikipedia, and use pictures linked from the article or one of its sub-articles.

Those who search for forefinger in order to find smut deserve to get an occasional picture of the middle finger.

Re:Not a problem

[JonySuede]

at started looking at porn at 10, I am rightfully employed and technically married with regard to the law based on how long we have resided together*1, I am happier than the average as long as my generalized anxiety*2 is under medical control, I do not plan to have kids but it is unrelated to my porn watching habits, I have friends and I am generally a well adjusted adult*3 .

So unless you have peer reviewed data on the effect of porn on kids mental development, it is as preposterous to suppose that porn harm child than it is to suppose that it does not. If you have please reply with a link.

On a tangentially related subject, here is my definition of common sense:
A set of culturally dependent heuristics that enable one to make a quick socially acceptable decision that is usually sub-optimal or completely wrong when you evaluate it using statistics and formal logic...

1- 6 years and 8 month and we both do not give a fuck about marriage , neither do I have to hide when I watch porn.
2- That started way before I started looking at porn, as I remember starting stealing antihistamine in my father medicine cabinet for the calm it brought me at about 5.
3- Except when I post to slashdot ;)

Re:Not a problem

[Dishevel]

Or maybe as with almost everything people should shut the fuck up and not look at what they do not want to see.

Re:Not a problem

[Nethemas the Great]

This is simply an evolution of children looking up "genitals" in the encyclopedia on the shelf. The solution isn't to ban/filter content, the solution is for parents to be proactive and have frank, honest and ongoing conversation with their children about human sexuality. Just because you rip the page out of your encyclopedia at home doesn't mean they won't go look it up on their next visit to the public library. Hiding, prohibiting, and generally making it a taboo subject, especially for children whom are naturally curious will only motivate them to chase after it. When they do, it won't be the parents that are in control of the lessons learned.

Re:Not a problem

[swalve]

Porn is a graphic depiction of sexual activity with the intent to arouse or titillate the viewer. Despite the ignorant screams of the what about the children brigade, it isn't just nude pictures.

Re:Not a problem

[wattersa]

It's called the Puritan Heritage. Sad but true: check this brief summary out.

Europe will never get it; it's too ingrained in American culture that violence is OK but sex is not.

There is one benefit, however. Judging by the horribly embarrassing percentage of America that is obese or otherwise unsuitable for being seen naked, I am actually more comfortable with how we do things over here.

I especially don't like the "whores in windows" in Amsterdam, although prostitution is legal in a small part of the U.S. so I can't really complain about it being legal over there. Sex toys in windows, more of a gray area. I'd rather not see them but that's just my opinion.

Re:Not a problem

[xs650]

"I've never seen porn on Wikipedia,"

I assumed that was the problem they were referring to.

Re:Not a problem

[wattersa]

> I gained an amazing vocabulary of dirty words and depraved acts from printed material when I was a kid, but I didn't know how to properly apply them til my dad taught me.

Hmm....how closely did your dad supervise you in this training regimen you describe? ;)

Re:Not a problem

[couchslug]

Your post was all insults, perfectly representing the thought processes of censorship advocates.

Thank you for representing your base so very, very, very well.

Re:Not a problem

[sdguero]

It's a useful educational resource.

That is debatable. It's a useful took to quickly lookup unreliable information. Not very useful in an academic setting (if it is, then there is something wrong with the academics).

Re:Not a problem

[dkleinsc]

I guess you'd be OK with say your 5 or 8 or 10 year-old child looking at porn, then?

Sure, I'm OK with that.

1. S/he is going to be acting more out of curiousity than sexual interest (kids that age have sexual interest, but nowhere near as much as s/he will when their 13). When young kids see something sexual, the tendency is to get bored with it really quickly.
2. By taking the mystery away, I'm reducing the chance that s/he'll experiment unsafely when their 12 or 13.
3. It can be a "teachable moment" where I can explain the difference between the fantasy of banging Megan Fox and the reality of an actual relationship with Megan next door.
4. The average child in the world sees a boob within the first hour of their existence. Children generally will see people of the opposite sex nude at least a few times before entering first grade. And they will likely know the basics of what body part goes where by the time they're about 10.
5. Historically, most kids were conceived in 1-room homes that the parents shared with the new kid's elder siblings. Plus most kids were raised on farms, so they would have seen animals going at it quite a few times as well.
6. Sex is hereditary. If your parents never had it, chances are you won't either. (In other words, every single generation has figured it out, there's no reason to think the next one won't.)

About the only areas of most porn that are really going to cause problems long-term are that porn doesn't typically demonstrate the use of birth control.

Re:Not a problem

[thesameguy]

Not very. It's like learning to ride a bike. Dad shows you how to balance and then pushes you down the hill. The only real metrics are whether you make it across the intersection at the bottom or not. The part is the middle isn't actually a shared experience.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I am absolutely unaware of any benefits censorship yields. I have never learned anything and thought, "gee, I wish they would have censored that".

goatse?

On a more serious note, self-censorship or 'censorship' configured by the user (ie. you) can be a good thing. Similarly, self-censorship is generally good, if it chosen by the author. For example, I currently do not accuse you of being ignorant because I would consider this rude. If I write a scientific paper, I only include those things that I can make a strong case for and that I feel are important to the field; again, a very useful piece of self-censorship. If I would be a facebook user, and I'd have pictures from a party, I might choose to exclude those pictures where people are excessively drinking to protect them; another example of censorship being good.

To summarise, censorship is a good thing, as long as it is by choice; "I don't want to see this" or "I don't think this should be public".

Re:Not a problem

[lgw]

There is one benefit, however. Judging by the horribly embarrassing percentage of America that is obese or otherwise unsuitable for being seen naked, I am actually more comfortable with how we do things over here.

If public nudity were more accepted here, I bet the obesity problem would be significantly reduced! At least, it would do more to help than New York city banning soft drinks larger than 16oz will do.

Re:Not a problem

[cmdr_tofu]

I wish I had modpoints to give you for this. I wholeheartedly agree.

Although a good solution for those who are easily offended is a firefox plugin which makes 1/5 mediawiki pages fail to load, but leaves wikipedia intact

Re:Not a problem

[DeadDecoy]

I mostly agree with your point. But there are some things I wouldn't mind seeing censored: hate speech and real violence to other people (for the sake of promoting violence). Censorship can be used as a brutal means of thought-control. But, I also think it can be used to establish healthy normative behaviors within a community. What happens when the line between entertainment or health curiosity is blurred with the accepted abuse of another gender or race? Do we as a society shut abusive types of media down or give up on censorship because it can only lead to inevitable misuse?

I ask these questions because I really don't have a good answer for them. : /

Re:Not a problem

[Andreas Kolbe]

No. You can be searching for an image of a toothbrush or for a picture of a tennis backhand and you end up being shown sexual images, both in Wikipedia and in Commons. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems The video of the nun having sex with a dog comes up as a top result for any French schoolchild entering devoirs (homework) or vacances (holidays) as a search term in Commons, or as a file search term in Wikipedia

Re:Not a problem

[Andreas Kolbe]

No. Showing children an unfiltered bestiality video, or images of women drinking their own urine, is not just an evolution of children looking up genitals.

Re:Not a problem

[Andreas Kolbe]

Videos of Commons contributors masturbating in their bedrooms to the point of ejaculation are not just "nude pictures".

Re:Not a problem

[Hatta]

I also think it can be used to establish healthy normative behaviors within a community.

No, it can't. Healthy normative behavior is well informed, censorship can only create ignorance.

What happens when the line between entertainment or health curiosity is blurred with the accepted abuse of another gender or race?

You counter it with healthy positive messages. See what's been happening with gay rights recently. You don't need to censor Baptist activists, you just need to expose the nastiness of their message and let nature take its course. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Re:Not a problem

[DigiShaman]

What evidence is there that porn is bad for children?

I don't know about children. They may find it intriguing if downright disgusting (ewww, nasty). Teen males OTOH can develop a warped and twisted sense of what's expected out of women. While it would seem obvious there's a distinction between fantasy and reality, pornography does act as a behavior modifier for many with a habit. So while it's not the end of the world, it's not socially healthy either. The same goes for teen and adult women. Their "porn" is not visual, but mental. I direct your attention to romance novels in this case.

Re:Not a problem

[KiloByte]

The moment this filter has been first mentioned, schools and counties passed resolutions requiring the use of such filter and making it illegal to turn it off. This included proposals for mandatory proxies that hijack connections to Wikipedia to make sure no one tries to work around the filter.

So I say such a filter even existing is not an option, even if it sounds good on the first glance.

Re:Not a problem

[Americano]

The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content. That's censorship.

Is it really "chilling" anything, though? The filter they're talking about is purely opt-in: "if you wish to have these images not show up in little Johnny's wikipedia searches, click Enable." I don't see Google's "safe search" option exercising a noticeable chilling effect on the upload of pornographic material to the web, though the change in results is quite noticeable for many searches just by changing the safe search setting.

If that's the extent of the "filtering," I'm struggling to think of any reason why that would create a "chilling" effect on people uploading to Wikipedia. You haven't changed anything, except maybe a few images/video/etc. would get tagged "adult" or "filterable" or whatever, and thus omitted from a certain subset of search results, but still readily available for the people who haven't opted in to the filtering.

I wouldn't enable the filter for myself, though I might enable it for a child if they were going to have any 'unsupervised' computer time where they're clicking around on the web. Things like broad DMCA takedowns and obscenity laws can have chilling effects, but there doesn't seem to be any call for government sanction associated with this filter - just a convenient way for users to say "I'd prefer not to see that." I'm not sure that meets any threshold for producing "chilling" effects.

Re:Not a problem

[anared]

Yes, Thats a great idea, I should stop using such a shitty browser. Tell me a browser which automatically can read my mind on all the DIFFERENT computers I use. Oh, there isnt one. Great idea to make a problem out of something that isnt a problem, it should be opt-in, its the lesser bother.

Re:Not a problem

[cheekyjohnson]

What happens when the line between entertainment or health curiosity is blurred with the accepted abuse of another gender or race?

If people are that foolish (and as surprising as it may be, I don't think they are), I think you're going to have a few problems down the road, censorship or not.

Do we as a society shut abusive types of media down or give up on censorship because it can only lead to inevitable misuse?

I believe the latter would be a far more ideal solution.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

sustained viewing pornography tends to result in reduced desire to form monogamous relationships

So do sustained monogamous relationships.

Re:Not a problem

[cheekyjohnson]

There are some studies you just can't do.

Then perhaps people shouldn't go around spouting such things as facts, and possibly trying to get laws passed? If they have no evidence, then I believe what they think is worthless. Seeing nudity and sex as a child never hurt me. So, anecdotally, I've seen no evidence of any such thing being true.

Re:Not a problem

[Hatta]

Right on.

Re:Not a problem

[citylivin]

"I have never learned anything and thought, "gee, I wish they would have censored that""

What about showing rape porn to an 8 year old?

This is why i use openDNS on my kids computer. You do realize children are not capable of making their own decisions 100% of the time right? You do realize that some things should be censored from kids so that they can have a childhood right?

I dislike your absolute that "all censorhsip is evil". You will change your mind as soon as you have kids and see how helpless they are in the face of advertising and porn. They don't know what to make of it. Sure you can sit down and explain it, sometimes over and over, but there is no guarantee they will understand. Then when they start acting out in society, who gets the blame do you think? The parents of course!! That is who let them access this filthy stuff. Is it wikipedias fault, or my fault? Either way I want to try and manage that, since its my fucking kids and i am responsible! So I will filter my childrens net access.

You should try and be a bit more open minded, not just "censorship is the bad always for ALL cases". This is reality. Not some first year philosophy class. You kinda need to have gone through it with kids to be able to understand i think.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

Do you have children?

I won't explain to you why I am a better judge of what you should see than yourself, because I am not.

You, I assume, are an adult but not a parent.

As a parent I am rather insistent that I am a better judge than my 7 year old of what he should see.

He can spell and he can surf the web. I would like him to be able to access Wikipedia unsupervised, but at this time I don't see any reason why he should be allowed to stumble on pictures of sexual practices like fisting or ball torture.

I couldn't care less about what you get to see, but I would like a filter flag that allows me to ensure my kids are not exposed to gratuitous violence and/or pornography until they are mature enough to deal with it.

To me it seems almost intentionally obtuse to not understand the use case for this.

Re:Not a problem

[youngatheart]

Maybe the default should be what most people seem to prefer, or perhaps the one that causes the least customer loss. You know, instead of turning the default to the setting that gets you banned in schools?

Maybe you should split off potentially offensive content to a different sub-domain so it can be easily blocked by people want to block it and ignored by people who don't care.... like Bing does.

Re:Not a problem

[Nethemas the Great]

Quite right, it would be sneaking into their father's porn collection when nobody's looking. Which of course is the next stop after looking up genitals. Just as on Wikipedia kids will seek out the childhood taboos of genitals, peeing, etc. after which, armed with new search terms will discover other angles on human sexuality and how much more useful Google is to pursue that.

My point is, that this is not a new development with the advent of Internet. Open parental engagement, not content filters is what is required if children are to develop a healthy perspective and treatment of the subject. Would it be helpful if people didn't flaunt it in front of children too young to understand? Perhaps. But, parents are also too quick to use this as a wall to hide behind for the sake of their own comfort. They'd rather hide the subject and not deal with it because the idea of discussing human sexuality with their children makes them uncomfortable. Most kids are quite capable of grasping at an elementary school age what the parts are, where they go, and why people put them there. Parents aren't owning up to the reality that their children, no matter how tightly they think they are blocking their exposure will eventually be exposed and at a far earlier age than most would consider possible. Regardless of what they do their children will be exposed to and pursue the subject. Either the parents can guide them through the subject and instill the values they want them to have or they can let them draw their own conclusions from exploring the perversions manifest and offered up by a minority of diseased minds.

Re:Not a problem

[youngatheart]

Really? Like Bing? (explicit.bing.net).

Where is it illegal to not block it?

Re:Not a problem

[lightknight]

Yes, with the 'War on Porn' achieving results comparable to that of both the 'War on Drugs' and our legislature's ability to stay within a set budget. ;-)

Re:Not a problem

[lightknight]

"On a more serious note, self-censorship or 'censorship' configured by the user (ie. you) can be a good thing." -> In much the same sense as self-flagellism can be a good thing.

"If I write a scientific paper, I only include those things that I can make a strong case for and that I feel are important to the field; again, a very useful piece of self-censorship." -> Typically a scientific paper has a focus, or topic; that you didn't stray into unconnected or at best, loosely connected topics is not self-censorship.

Re:Not a problem

[lightknight]

"My definition of childhood includes a period of innocence, or a freedom from some knowledge that's usually difficult for people to make sense of." -> And as when I was younger, I fail understand what could possibly be so difficult about sex. It requires, at best, 30-60 minutes to explain that we are a species with two genders, and that it's the matching of one gender with the other, under the appropriate circumstances, that results in more of the species being made. Now, I concede, that teaching people how to actually have really enjoyable sex requires more instruction, but I digress, it's hard to know when there is too much here or too little.

"Why burden a child with something that many adults can't bear?" -> Umm, hello? 99% of all human males have masturbated by age 20. For the male gender, sex is like getting your driver's permit; not having any would be considered an 'alternate' lifestyle.' While the number of human females have masturbated by age 20 is lower, it is still an appreciable majority of them. As such, any adult that cannot bear to discuss sex, let alone have some, would find themselves in the 1% of humanity, which depending on your system of beliefs, would be a badge of honor or shame.

If you went to a standard high-school right now, or even a middle-school, the quality of information that the kids possess about sex, if questioned, would radically change your world view. Perhaps it's best to give kids the choice to decide whether or not they are 'mature' enough to learn about sex?

Re:Not a problem

[Immerman]

Actually I don't think it would have to be - find a culture that isn't puritanical about sex, where no effort is made to shelter children from pornographic material, and do a cross-cultural study. Either you'll find the non-puritanical children have been meaningfully damaged, or they haven't. Of course in either case you could argue that other cultural factors are in play, but I strongly suspect they would find no damage, and if you want to argue that it would be damaging to children in our culture, then I would argue the problem lies in our culture, not the pornography.

Re:Not a problem

[JanneM]

This is why i use openDNS on my kids computer. You do realize children are not capable of making their own decisions 100% of the time right? You do realize that some things should be censored from kids so that they can have a childhood right?

I agree. And that is your responsibility as a parent. But I do not agree that the world at large should be barred from certain subject matters simply because your child should not see it.

Re:Not a problem

[Teancum]

I think that is sort of the point: There are some people within the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community who simply don't even want the bit to be added to the MediaWiki software database structure in the first place, particularly as it applies to adult content. It doesn't matter that this is turned off by default or that it is even optional to put on a page or image and can be removed with a simple edit by an ordinary editor.... there are people in the community who simply don't even want the feature at all and will go out of their way to thwart any effort to censor the project.

Jimmy Wales has long since lost the ability to force a decision like this and arbitrarily put a feature like this into the project. He might have been able to do that back in 2003 or so (perhaps as late as 2005), but he can't force this in at the moment. Wikipedia has sort of frozen its policies with just minor tweaks and prods from time to time. A change in this nature is rather significant and likely isn't going to happen without widespread community support.

Then again Wikipedia changed the terms of its content license (from GFDL to CC-by-SA) and blacked out for a day with SOPA, so a determined group of people might be able to make some change like this. It just needs a widespread constituency from within the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community insisting it happen and not back down from those would would fight the change. It just can't happen with the force of will by one person any more.

Re:Not a problem

[alexander_686]

I don't think that is true. In my neck of the woods only a single "art" theater chain will run NC-17 films. On the other hand, quite a few will run the unrated type.

Films with a NC-17 rating have restrictions on how they are advertised. Since you can't advertise, most theaters wont run the film.

And it's not about porn films. Those are low quality. I would like something with a bit of class. The MPAA is a bit odd. Have a ton of blood and guns, get a R. Have a bit of male frontal nudity, NC-17. It does slant the story telling process.

For a good film, see "This Film is Not yet Rated" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated

Re:Not a problem

[dr2chase]

I went and tried to read some of the discussions, and those people are insane. One bit, called (after convening a task force to deliberate on the important issue of name of bit, and much harrumphing) "NSFW". Done. Any organization that can't do that, is busted.

Re:Not a problem

[tobiasly]

Wow didnt know that Jesus loved anal sex with women...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anal_Intercourse_Artwork.jpg

I wonder if this qualifies as just "regular" porn or "extremely gross" porn?

Re:Not a problem

[Teancum]

I would say it is a larger headache for administrators than for ordinary editors. Articles and content surrounding the sex pages and quasi-legal content (like a Wikibook about making your own bongK/a>) often draw in controversy by themselves. People like Jimmy Wales, when they wade into those controversies, often leave a big wake behind them as well and damages the community in countless ways. BTW, I don't mind Jimmy Wales voicing his opinion in these situations, my beef is when he acts unilaterally ignoring any sort of consensus building process at all.

These kind of pages are often nominated for deletion (the Prykete Bong page received three separate RfD nominations and a minor wheel war on top of that) and often become the source of edit wars as well. Furthermore, even if the content is appropriate for a certain sub-set of pages, trolls and other petty juvenile pranks often throw this kind of content onto other heavy traffic pages as a form of vandalism. Yes, those are easily reverted, but if you admin on Wikimedia projects you eventually become even numb to seeing such junk.

If all you do is edit astronomy and political articles, you will never see this kind of stuff.

Re:Not a problem

[Immerman]

Actually on non-controversial subjects wikipedia has been shown to be only slightly less accurate than The Encyclopedia Britannica, and far more comprehensive and in-depth. At least that was the case a few years ago, perhaps things have changed since then. As such it makes an excellent first (and possibly only) stop for information for pretty much anything non-critical.

Academia (post-secondary) has it's own standards as advancing the borders of human knowledge requires a great deal of rigor to reduce fallacious reasoning, and there is a major cultural conflict between their approach and Wikipedia's. Outside of that circle though Wikipedia is exceptionally useful, and I must say I weep for anyone whose education is limited to academics.

Re:Not a problem

[kermidge]

And I'm wondering who the hell brilliant idjit conflated t and a with porn. Fuck these idiots, and, if you've a mind, the horse they rode in on (after you get them a ladder to get off the damn thing.) Not to mention, since when does anatomy suddenly, magically, become "porn?" Most folks I know left that behind somewhere in the middle school grades, when they were desperate for knowledge (especially given the happy crapola parents dished out in the Fifties and Sixties), let alone titillation.

Who here doesn't remember looking up "naughty bits?"

The truly brilliant (British use) aspect of the Internet is that if you look for something, you can find it, absent government interference or your parents' web filter. Selah.

Re:Not a problem

[arose]

How about ad networks that are not completely composed of blinking, flashing, loud, attention grabbing shit? Advertisers would flood them with it, ad networks self-censor to avoid the worst of it. On the side of content tagged for filtering we have /. moderation system, among other things.

Re:Not a problem

[Pseudonym]

All of your points (with the possible exception of #3) implicitly assume that porn is sex. It isn't, as anyone who has actually had sex can tell you.

My kids (all under the age of 13) know about sex. They know that their parents have sex. They've seen pictures of childbirth. I let them watch The Big Bang Theory, where it's mentioned and even implied all the time. They've been to art galleries regularly since they were 2, where there's plenty of nudity.

I don't have a problem with sex and nudity. The problem with porn is that it's not sex. It's not that it's too explicit, it's that it's not nearly explicit enough. It invariably contains no emotion, nothing about relationships, nothing about negotiation... it leaves out everything that's good about sex beyond the purely mechanical. And that's leaving aside the the fact that it compounds existing dysfunctions in our society like body image dysmorphia.

There's a lot of emerging evidence that young adults who watched a lot of porn have problems with intimate relationships. It makes intuitive sense when you think about it, like how exclusively using Visual Basic teaches you bad programming habits, or eating a diet of junk food gives you bad dietary habits and can even permanently affect your physiology.

That there exists "good" porn is beside the point. The vast majority of it is bad for a developing brain. They would be far better off with trashy erotic romance novels than they would be with porn, because at least they contain some actual emotional content.

Anecdote: My daughter (when she was eight) and I were passing an "adult shop". She asked what it was. I thought about it for a moment and said: You know the annoying boys at your school who tell dumb, unfunny, stupid jokes? It's like that, only sex.

Re:Not a problem

[Pseudonym]

Romance novels (I've read a few to see what the fuss was about) have the redeeming feature that at least they link sex to love and emotions. You can't say that about the vast majority of porn.

Re:Not a problem

[Chibi Merrow]

There's a lot of emerging evidence that young adults who watched a lot of porn have problems with intimate relationships.

Except that the link you gave cites no other evidence than "I said so."

If there's a lot of emerging evidence, someone would be able to point to some sort of peer reviewed studies saying as much. They shouldn't have to fall back on the words of someone who makes a living treating "porn addiction".

Re:Not a problem

[arose]

Funny, but not exactly what you'd get with a normal search.

Re:Not a problem

[Pseudonym]

Good point. I just gave the first link I found.

Here are three peer reviewed studies. Had I spent more than 2 minutes with Google Scholar, I could have found more.

I do stress that this is emerging evidence, and a lot more work needs to be done. But even if there's no link found, the simple fact is that porn is not information about sex, it's misinformation about sex.

Re:Not a problem

[melikamp]

Really, who gives a flying fuck. Statistically speaking, whatever scandalous things kids do when they hang out together without adult supervision will absolutely dwarf whatever they find on the Internet. Filtering Internet porn for the sake of kids is retarded: they all already have access to pictures and videos of naked kids in their own school or neighborhood doing whatever. Some of them are semiprofessional porn producers. They also revel in using the nastiest, juiciest profanities. Now I barely swear at all beyond expletives when falling on my face or alone, doing math or coding. When I was in grade school, plenty of people were swearing just for the sake of swearing. Swearing and fucking. This particular aspect of the US culture others find hard to understand: kids obviously have a lot of sex, but they are not allowed near the naughty art.

Re:Not a problem

[BlackPignouf]

porn doesn't typically demonstrate the use of birth control.

True.
That's why I insist on anal sex and facials when showing porn to my kids!

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

I guess it must be due to the hormones that I cannot make any sense of your statement.

Are you arguing that it is irrational that parents safe-guard what their kids get to see?

If so that'll be just demented.

On the other hand this comment would make some sense if it was directed at the parent post.

Re:Not a problem

[rohan972]

I would argue that porn destroys children.

My own child vaporized in front of my eyes because he glanced at my monitor and I had left an inappropriate page open. People should be warned. The level of guilt you feel when you're responsible for vaporizing your child is crushing.

My definition of childhood includes a period of innocence, or a freedom from some knowledge that's usually difficult for people to make sense of.

We don't care about your definition. Reality is that childhood is FULL TO THE BRIM of knowledge that's difficult to make sense of. Everything you haven't learned yet falls into that category. If you don't learn about it you still can't make sense of it later.

For instance, we don't confront children with knowledge of death (if we can avoid doing so), because death is difficult even for adults.

You might. Most people do things like buy pets for their children, part of the experience will be learning about death. I grew up on a farm, we bred our own stock and killed for our meat. Our daughter, when she was four, excitedly told her mom "the male duck wants to mate with the female". You don't have to be sexually active to learn about it. Our older children witnessed the birth of their youngest sister. Are they all destroyed? I don't think so, they seem happy and they're fairly well behaved.

We have watched plenty of movies with them that are outside their "classification" and they don't seem harmed and don't have nightmares. Maybe it is because we watch with them and make comments as we deem necessary. Also, they decide not to watch some things like scary parts of movies, so we hide eyes and use the mute control. Some things they like to be close to us as they watch.

I find it hard to believe that just seeing porn accidentally would harm them. I find it equally hard to believe that if they seek out porn I can stop them. When I was a kid and me and my friends saw porn we used to laugh. Now I've been married for 10 years. What is the damage that's been done to me?

It's true that kids need to learn about sex eventually, but if they learn about it from porn they're going to have some pretty screwed up ideas about sex.

Same could be said about religion. Most porn is for entertainment, not education. Is sex education only about disease and pregnancy? I'd argue that some instructional porn could be considered part of a good sex education. There are some pretty detailed and useful videos out.

Re:Not a problem

[wvmarle]

So access to old-fashioned paper encyclopedias in those schools is no problem? Or are those encyclopedias simply grossly incomplete by not having any entries on controversial subjects such as porn, sex and sexuality and related parts of he human body, violence, rape, massacres, etc?

By the way do commercial encyclopedias like Brittania censor their own content? Or are they banned too?

Re:Not a problem

[wvmarle]

So no access to Slashdot either :-) It's not that this site filters content.

Re:Not a problem

[fredprado]

So, instead of explaining what needs to be explained in order for your children to understand the world around them, you treat them as mindless idiots and make the thinking for them. Censure is NEVER the way to do anything right. And children do not need to be protect from seeing one of the most natural acts living beings do. Sex is not evil, and sex is not inadequate for the minds of children. Lack of information is, and you are doing an excellent job keeping your children ignorant. Please, let me know when they do stupid things on your back because you were too afraid to give them the proper knowledge they needed to develop.

Re:Not a problem

[Immostlyharmless]

Good luck trying live your life in ignorant bliss. Please let us all here at /. know how that turns out.

Ok, so now you know someone is gay. Big deal. How does that *really* affect you? I'm totally curious to know how many brain cycles you actually waste thinking about this sort of crap and how it affects you on any personal basis.

Re:Not a problem

[fredprado]

It exists and it can be shown and explained as the oddity it is. Children are not stupid. Age rating for any knowledge is a reflection of our misguided overprotective culture. There is nothing evil or traumatic in knowledge as long as the proper context is offered, and if you only try you will find out that children's minds are far more resilient than you think, and far less filled of prejudice than yours.

Re:Not a problem

[Austerity Empowers]

I've been using Wikipedia for years and I've never seen any porn. Can somebody help a brother out?

I never have either, I mean there were some anatomy pictures when you look up topics of certain parts of the anatomy, but I expect those pictures to be there (and they were in my old fashioned dead tree encyclopedia as a kid). But if you know enough to look up "convent pornography" then you have obviously been exposed to what pornography is, and you're just fishing for material at this point (and boy, are you fishing in a really shallow, really murky pool).

Anyway, I don't feel for Mr. Sanger's plight, and I'm a father of two. I think I can keep the kids out of the smut until they're 8 or 9, but I saw my first porno rag long before that (and long before the internet), and I lived through it, somehow.

Re:Not a problem

[Stan92057]

Doesn't matter if its bad or not, its against the law to allow children to view pornography. where can children buy/view pornography in public? You know of any place? Adult book store would be shut down in a heartbeat if they started allows children inside how is wikipedia any different? its not in public libraries why is that? its no different then any online library. i am not against pornography at all but everything has its place and should not on sites where children go and use.

Re:Not a problem

[Altrag]

As a parent I am rather insistent that I am a better judge than my 7 year old of what he should see.

One would hope that's the case at least.

I would like a filter flag that allows me to ensure my kids are not exposed to gratuitous violence and/or pornography

So you're shirking the responsibility you just claimed. You're essentially making the claim that Wikipedia's filter is a better judge of what your child should see than either him or yourself.

I would like him to be able to access Wikipedia unsupervised

And there's the meat of it. You want to give your kid the internet, but you don't trust him (rightfully so) to judge content.. but you also can't be bothered to do it yourself. So you want everyone else on the internet to spend their time and resources essentially babysitting your kid for you.

If you want your kid to be safe on the internet, then monitor his usage, just as you would (hopefully) monitor him in any other public setting.

Re:Not a problem

[Altrag]

That's not self-censorship. That's the ad network censoring the advertisers. And that's only because tools like Adblock were starting to come into play and the ad networks realized that they'd do better placing more subtle ads that people wouldn't just immediately kill than losing the eyeballs all together.

Of course, it helped that Google's advertising program came along around the same time period and was incredibly successful without resorting to being horrible, leading the way for other ad networks to follow suit.

I'm sure that's by no means a complete history of the move away from eye- and ear-destroying ads, but its the two most obvious factors, give or take a couple of years of settling and whatnot.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

Children's minds have to develop. Nobody is born with any categorical knowledge. For instance a child even has to learn what gender is. Try to explain sex to a child who's still not quite clear on this.

A seven year old already acquired a good bit of knowledge about the world but not at all the robust coping mechanisms of an adult.

If he came across disturbing images while I am sitting next to him I could intervene and put things into context, but I cannot at this age have him surf the web interdependently without filter.

Again, if you think this is over-protection I can only hope you are not the caregiver for young children.

Children need a protective space to grow up. You increase the boundaries of that space in accordance with how their abilities and judgment mature.

You clearly don't seem to grasp this very basic concept of parenting.

Re:Not a problem

[arose]

Well, yes, more or less. End-user filtering that resulted in ad networks censoring the advertisers in turn increasing the self-censorship for many of them (some had it already, some moved to more sleazy networks). This would indicate that all three can, in certain circumstances, lead to positive results.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

I use the OpenDNS filter on the computers that my kids can access.

I don't believe in locking our computers up, but I also don't believe in sitting next to my kids for the entirety when they play games, draw or watch cartoons on the computer. Although, for the most part, I am in the same room when they are online.

I also installed the etoys programming environment for my seven year old and he gets quite a bit of mileage out of it. I contemplated to just have the computer be offline to force him to use the locally installed software, but I think that is too restrictive.

And no, I am not the kind of parent who hovers over his kids in any other public space as well. We have a park in front of the house and all the neighborhood's kids go and play out there. I can hear and see them from the front door but I don't feel that at this age I need to have them under parental surveillance 24/7 when they're out in the park.

What you suggest as a solution essentially means to not grant them any independence at all - neither online nor offline.

Judging what is child unsuitable content is not rocket science and it can be easily crowd sourced. Advocating that every parent is supposed to do it on their own is brain-dead.

Re:Not a problem

[quenda]

3. It can be a "teachable moment" where I can explain the difference between the fantasy of banging Megan Fox and the reality of an actual relationship with Megan next door.

That is fine if they can keep a secret, but more likely your chat will get back to either Megan, or their mother.

Re:Not a problem

[fredprado]

Our minds have to develop too. There are far more things I, you or any adult does not know than the things we know. Comparable to that the difference in knowledge between us and children is tiny. Saying that children need to grow up in a bubble controlled by their parents is a ridiculous assumption based in absolutely no data to back it up. During thousands of years this excessive care never existed in human civilization and children were not in the slight affected by what you judge to be so deleterious in your prejudiced mind. Your way of parenting is a suffocation, restrictive way of creating people unprepared to deal with the world around them. You think you are doing a favor to your children, but you are doing way more harm than good with your ways.

Re:Not a problem

[dasunt]

This is why i use openDNS on my kids computer. You do realize children are not capable of making their own decisions 100% of the time right? You do realize that some things should be censored from kids so that they can have a childhood right?

I remember dirty jokes from grade school. I even remember a discussion about some celebrity or athlete who was found dead with evidence of sexual activity that was unusual at the time.

So unless kids have changed in the past three decades or so, I'm going to assume that they'll still learn stuff you'd rather not know, and they'll probably learn it rather young.

As far as I remember, none of the jokes or news shocked me or scarred me for life, probably because I was a kid and dirty jokes were told because they were taboo, while the news from the TV was always happening in places far away.

The only time I recall actually being disturbed is when the 4th or 5th grade boys talked about the medical exams they underwent before playing contact football. I now realize, as an adult, it was probably a normal medical exam, but back then, it seemed rather creepy.

Re:Not a problem

[DeadDecoy]

I'd argue that different communities already enact a type of self-censorship. E.g. forums not allowed to show porn or use abusive languages. Members of these communities are usually ok with this type of censorship because they a) don't own the site and b) probably do not have strong opinions against the policy. Also, they don't have to view the material to be 'informed' about it.

I think there are many aspects that make it difficult to have a debate about internet censorship that doesn't lead to knee jerk reactions. Those aspects would be: 1) definition of censorship and 2) definition of the role of the internet.

For example, I may consider censorship as a form of banning illegal material: murder, rape, child abuse, etc. I'm sure if you started up a server that hosted outright snuff, society would find a way to shut you down.

For point 2, if the internet is considered a service in that it just sends bits to you, then adding a layer of censorship could inherently harm its usage. If it's a content delivery system then deciding what content to show/not show may make sense.

I'm not trolling for an argument. Rather I'm trying to understand what different people's interpretation of censorship and internet are.

Re:Not a problem

[DeadDecoy]

Found an interesting quote which highlights some of the points I was thinking about:

When you dehumanize a person, you can justify any crime you carry out upon them

The internet like any other information medium can be used to help or harm someone. If we're not aware of its capacity to harm someone like encouraging someone's guilt or inciting a war, our naivete could allow gross forms of injustice to occur.

Re:Not a problem

[Zontar The Mindless]

That's censorship.

So?

You're an idiot if you can't understand why censorship exists...

I am not an idiot and I do understand why censorship exists. It exists so that someone can exert control over me by controlling what I see and hear.

...and what benefits (not just the costs) it brings.

Yet you sidestep the question, "To whom are these benefits brought?"

Re:Not a problem

[Zontar The Mindless]

Judging what is child unsuitable content is not rocket science and it can be easily crowd sourced.

Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Ha.

You should be careful, people will think you're serious or something.

Re:Not a problem

[datavirtue]

Well...now you know.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree.

Humans don't get their own decisions 100% of the time right.
And children without censors don't get to have a childhood? I think your are way out of line, children don't need protection from images or videos, they need someone to talk to about those strange behaviors.

Children need protection from real world dangers like guns and starvation.

Yes, I have kids. 5

Re:Not a problem

[gronofer]

I've never seen porn on Wikipedia, because I've never looked for it. The fact that the porn is more highly accessed than other types of content indicates that we're not talking about accidental encounters. I don't see what the problem is.

Neither have I. Which is strange, since I've found vandalised articles on occasions and you'd expect Wikipedia vandals to have a lot of fun adding Wikipedia's own porn images to random articles. I guess they just have no imagination *shrug*

Re:Not a problem

[Damouze]

ISPs, Websites and such should not be forced to filter any content whatsoever, as long as that content is legal. Making sure your kid is not exposed to anything that for some ((pseudo-)scientific) reason is considered harmful to him, is not their job. It's yours. You are responsible for taking good care of your kid. And if your kid is at school, at a daycare center or anything of that sort, it is the job of the people directly involved with him and his peers. Not the ISP, not the website owner, not the BOFH who sits at the computer screen of the administration console of any of the aforementioned institutes, it's you the one you trust to be your surrogate.

Installing a content-filter is severely counterproductive. Why? Because whatever one does as an administrator and however smart one is in keeping up with the latest updates, there is always someone else who is smarter in cirvumventing whatever measures one takes. What you end up with is a digital arms race and an overworked admin whose only source of solace is the fact that he's root and that whatever you throw at him when the content filter failed for the zillionth time, he knows how to press proverbial big red button that says "(A)DSL STOP".

Making it "illegal" for anyone to access sites that aren't filtered for whatever reason is not only a violation of anyone's right of free (as freedom of choice) access to the internet, it is also sordidly reminiscent of trigger happy media institutes forcing ISPs to block certain websites and then making it "illegal" for ISPs and website owners to document how to circumvent those website blocks (which makes for interesting paradoxes, such as what to do with the minutes of the court's decision and the entire process, which in my home country are published on a government operated website).

Re:Not a problem

[deroby]

Actually pretty interesting what you say there :

with evidence of sexual activity that was unusual at the time.

Probably due to the ubiquity of all-things-sex on the internet (and in media in general) we seem to have shifted our view on 'unusual'.
While at the time oral sex might have been 'outlandish' it now seems that gang-banging is getting the norm.

I can remember being curious about boobs & stuff starting at the age of 10 or so [those 3 decades ago] and yes I (and pretty much everyone around me I guess) would find a way to get that knowledge out of the 'theory only world' by the age of say 15. Nowadays I hear/read of scouts-camps that get canceled because the 10-years created a (slightly) burned situation ( random related article : http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20110716_002 ); about boys that stalk a girl in the park and all rape her just for fun ( random related article : http://www.gva.be/nieuws/buitenland/aid916673/vijf-jongeren-opgepakt-na-groepsverkrachting-7-jarig-meisje.aspx ), etc...

As for the discussion in general here, I too wouldn't mind having an OPTIONAL filter that blocks out the 'worst parts'; then again I'd be more in favor of a 'slider' where one could 'introduce'' kids to 'reality' in little steps... I don't mind them seeing nude, male or female; really can't see what's wrong with that. Given their age (4&7) I'd rather not have them see people 'doing it' yet and I'd really, really, reaaallyy not expose them to weird kinds of sex until they are well past 15 and have built up a firm scale of values.

IMHO it would be very wrong to go back to Victorian Times, but the current situation leaves me wondering too...

Re:Not a problem

[rtb61]

Most likely the most sane approach rather than trying to censor the whole of wikipedia would be to create another version of wikipedia a little behind in terms of edits but one that has been reviewed as suitable for minors. So rather than blocking anything you create another version where only content that has passed suitable for minors muster can appear.

Re:Not a problem

[deroby]

Bullshit.

And there's the meat of it. You want to give your kid the internet, but you don't trust him (rightfully so) to judge content.. but you also can't be bothered to do it yourself. So you want everyone else on the internet to spend their time and resources essentially babysitting your kid for you.

If I'm going to sit next to my kids 24/7 to make sure they don't 'do' anything out of order I'm most certainly NOT helping them grow up into healthy individuals !
What you are suggesting is that we should remove the child-locks from our cars or heck any type of device that's meant to keep children from doing something (eg. that annoying cap on the bottle of bleach) because -according to your unrealistic vision- parents should be able to just be there, all the time.

Probably having more practical experience with the subject, children
    * need at least SOME time on their own and enough freedom in that time to discover their world
    * sometimes make bad decisions regardless of how many times you warned them before

In practice this means I'll try to give them as much (controlled) leeway as possible by trying to offer them a world where they can stroll around safely on their own. I know upfront I'll fail doing so at some point, I can only hope that they've either built up enough experience by the time to be able to cope with it and/or that we as parents have prepared them sufficiently to do so. 'Being there' and 'explaining things' are important but having some backup-systems at hand that help me out when I'm not there surely is a good thing!

Re:Not a problem

[RightSaidFred99]

Lol@You. Porn != nudity. Again, show your kids a cool double penetration scene, I'm sure they'll be _fine_.

Evidence.. What a bunch of risible bullshit. Human psychology and development is at best a pseudoscience, so there can be no evidence either way.

I've witnessed a child exposed to porn, she grew up to be a shiftless whore who caught herpes, crabs by the time she was 12.

Re:Not a problem

[RightSaidFred99]

There is no evidence either way. And I'll see your story and point do a dozen others where kids (especially girls) found their dad's porn and turned into raging whores by 12 years old.

Would you also posit that sexual abuse of a child is also not harmful? Exposure to porn (real porn, not just nudity) is a form of sexual abuse in children (real children.

What did I expect, I guess, coming to Slashdot to comment about parenting to a bunch of neckbeard dweebs.

Re:Not a problem

[RightSaidFred99]

No, I'm in that loony, crazy camp who thinks 7 year olds shouldn't be watching triple penetration midget porn.

Crazy, I know.

Re:Not a problem

[RightSaidFred99]

I don't need data, because there isn't any. "Show me the data" is fine when it comes to something where the data exists. It's intellectually lazy when it comes to a discussion like this.

I've seen it harm someone I knew when I was growing up. She was pregnant at 12 and never quite became well adjusted. That's not evidence, but neither are you.

Would you say it harms a child to watch a donkey make love to a woman, then be beheaded and the blood sprayed all over the child? Say.. a 6 year old? Surely you have evidence that it would be harmful if you indeed think it would be, right?

Re:Not a problem

[ultranova]

I couldn't care less about what you get to see, but I would like a filter flag that allows me to ensure my kids are not exposed to gratuitous violence and/or pornography until they are mature enough to deal with it.

So what constitutes "gratuitous violence"? History? Descriptions of how snake venom operates? Book plot summaries? How is anyone supposed to know what you happen to consider appropriate or inappropriate for your kid? And that's not getting into the impossibility of actually implementing this: every existing article and every future edit would need to be reviewed to see what side of the divide they fall to. And of course any failures would open Wikipedia to liability lawsuits.

The code changes might be insignificant, but the effort to actually filter the data would be enormous and endless, and frankly your convenience doesn't justify it.

Re:Not a problem

[TheRaven64]

Even that probably won't give the desired results. The problem is finding children who haven't been exposed to pornography. Even in relatively prudish societies, children share porno mags...

Re:Not a problem

[TheRaven64]

I've seen it harm someone I knew when I was growing up. She was pregnant at 12 and never quite became well adjusted. That's not evidence, but neither are you.

If you saw someone get pregnant by seeing porn, then I know some religions that would be interested in talking to you. It seems more likely, however, tht you saw someone have their life destroyed by not receiving education about contraception by the time they reached puberty.

Re:Not a problem

[TheRaven64]

From living in Wales, I can tell you that being massively overweight does not deter a significant fraction of the population from walking around with almost not clothing.

Re:Not a problem

[Theolojin]

I couldn't care less about what you get to see, but I would like a filter flag that allows me to ensure my kids are not exposed to gratuitous violence and/or pornography until they are mature enough to deal with it.

To me it seems almost intentionally obtuse to not understand the use case for this.

I am flabbergasted that so many are finding this objectionable. The issue is a voluntary flag that screens out certain material that some find inappropriate, whether for themselves or for the children. The issue is not banning such material from Wikipedia or making it impossible—or even difficult—to access. This is not censorship (no one is suggesting the government control this flag). This is providing a tool to enable Wikipedia users to determine the kind of content they can access for themselves.

Re:Not a problem

[blackpig]

I like the 'cut of your jib' sir... consider this a +1

Re:Not a problem

[Andreas Kolbe]

You are badly overthinking this. No other mainstream website shows you a woman masturbating with a toothbrush as a top result when you search for an image of a toothbrush, or a picture of a torn-off foot when you are looking for foot.

Re:Not a problem

[Zo0ok]

My employers standard internet filtering proxy used to block slashdot for being pornography. I told my boss it was silly, and they removed slashdot from the list.

Re:Not a problem

[Altrag]

If I'm going to sit next to my kids 24/7 to make sure they don't 'do' anything out of order I'm most certainly NOT helping them grow up into healthy individuals!

Monitoring them doesn't have to mean micromanaging them. As long as you're close enough to catch them before they get too far into something they shouldn't be, you're doing your job.

What you are suggesting is that we should remove the child-locks from our cars or heck any type of device that's meant to keep children from doing something

There's a difference -- your car is your private place, Wikipedia is a public place. A more appropriate metaphor would be releasing your kid in a shopping mall and expecting mall security to watch over their every move in order to protect them. If you want to lock your own computer down tight, you've got every right to do so and I'd fully support that. If you want to lock Wikipedia down, I'm going to take issue.

(eg. that annoying cap on the bottle of bleach)...parents should be able to just be there, all the time.

I should damned well hope you keep your kid out of the bleach. And any other cleaning product. That "child-proof" cap is basically useless. A good drop of the bottle will break or at least crack that thing in no time. Never mind any spillage that might be just sitting on the outside of the bottle waiting for a curious tongue.

And no, I don't think its unrealistic to have a parent or other guardian (babysitter, responsible older sibling, etc) keeping an eye on your kid at all times, online or offline.

need at least SOME time on their own and enough freedom in that time to discover their world

Agreed, but there's a place for that. And just like the place for offline freedom isn't a busy shopping mall (at least at 7), the place for online freedom isn't the wild internet. And if you insist on them being on the internet, there are plenty of kid-centric sites around. Wikipedia is by nature just not one of those sites. Not all information in the world was created for 7 year olds.

sometimes make bad decisions regardless of how many times you warned them before

Sure. And hopefully they have a supportive parent nearby to catch them and help them deal with the consequences of their bad decisions before any serious harm is done.

I'll try to give them as much (controlled) leeway as possible

Ahh here's that tricky part again. I applaud the sentiment, but I still firmly believe that if you want to give your kid a controlled experience, that you should be the one controlling it (at least, until they're old enough to understand and control their own experience.) Relying on some third party to control your kid's experience isn't really the best deal for anybody.

having some backup-systems at hand that help me out when I'm not there surely is a good thing!

It surely is, up until it starts impeding my life. Children would be a lot safer if the speed limit around the world was 5mph too. But much as we all like to think of the children, there comes a point where your desire to let your kid run around the yard unsupervised (risking an unnoticed trip into the street) starts impacting my desire to get where I'm going in a reasonable amount of time.

Re:Not a problem

[rubycodez]

Murder and maimig in cartoons and games for children is quite common, and you don't even mention that when you spew your nonsensical "we don't confront children with death". You are a self-deluded puritanical fool, your views have no bearing on reality.

Re:Not a problem

[fritsd]

Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia.

I can imagine how in the north of Mali, in Timbuktu, the new islamist rulers would want to block access to Wikipedia (which ones? the french, or arabic wikipedia?), but surely most of the world population is quite happy that their children have access to this valuable resource--or would be happy if their children were allowed to access it.
Can you actually name an area or a school or a country where Wikipedia is illegal? Besides such epitomes of freedom such as North Korea, Burma, and Saudi Arabia, I mean?

Maybe the USA "Conservapedia" can help out for those countries (that website really exists! this is *NOT* a joke! I think... although you'd doubt it, reading the Wikipedia entry about it).

Just like the Wikipedia content is divided out over multiple different languages, the "Conservapedia" could cater for the USA Christian Fundamentalists, Al-Qaida wannabees, Salafists, Taliban etc. etc.

Re:Not a problem

[Pseudonym]

Actually, there's a wider variety of erotic romance than you seem to think. Have you ever read any chick lit?

Re:Not a problem

[Joe Decker]

I think that is sort of the point: There are some people within the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community who simply don't even want the bit to be added to the MediaWiki software database structure in the first place, particularly as it applies to adult content. It doesn't matter that this is turned off by default or that it is even optional to put on a page or image and can be removed with a simple edit by an ordinary editor.... there are people in the community who simply don't even want the feature at all ...

With the exception of the "will go to any length", stuff that I've snipped out here, I'm pretty much one of them.

And the reason is simple. Image and web filtering outside of Wikipedia has always turned out to be a coatrack not just for "not showing sexual acts" but for the insertion of political, sexist, racist, or heterosexist bias. Moreover, not every parent shares the same definition of what it's inappropriate to see, you and I might not call "holding hands" porn, but the laws of North Carolina essentially treat it as sexual incitement, and the people behind those laws are going to want that called "adult content." Obviously the Wikipedia community will average a bit more liberal than that, but (a) there's no objective place to draw a line for an adult content image filter, and (b) those discussions are still going to eat a lot of cycles, and will inevitably erode WP:NPOV, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

And, .. where's the real problem? I've spent quite a bit of time on Wikipedia, and sure there's stuff there I don't want to look at. But surprisingly little, and the vast majority of what is actually problematic doesn't stick around inappropriately in articles. Yet Wikipedia still gets a fair bit of whining where you might think there'd be none--the number of folks deeply offended that one of the pictures at kissing involves two men, or did a few years ago, is telling enough. The last thing the encyclopedia needs is an excuse for more of that bullshit.

So, what's really behind this effort?

Hard to say with Sanger, and he does have fair "concerns", but he's got a history with Wikipedia that raises questions about the motivation for this article. For the board, I'd guess there's a desire to some extent for political (or even legal) cover, a natural inclination, I've worked on a non-profit board. It happens.

But many of those of us who actually want to build an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view are against it.

I'm surprised that anyone thinks this is a surprise.

Re:Not a problem

[Joe Decker]

So, tell me what encyclopedia article that's used in?

Re:Not a problem

[Idbar]

Go figure. People think about "gross " porn. I sincerely prefer to see porn, instead of the gross images posted on Wikipedia pages for diseases (venereal or not) .

Re:Not a problem

[watice]

he's also not very well endowed apparently

Re:Not a problem

[Vegemeister]

Oh no. Whatever shall we do.

Re:Not a problem

[JohnnyBGod]

I think your sarcasmometer is broken.

Re:Not a problem

[HArchH]

Wikipedia has porn? Thanks for the lead.

Re:Not a problem

[JonySuede]

Exposure to porn (real porn, not just nudity) is a form of sexual abuse in children (real children.

The discussion here is about porn on Wikipedia, I thought that it was evident that those "child" who saw it where actively seeking it as before this I never saw porn on Wikipedia. The context is not the same and yet you treat it as if it were.

and I'll see your story and point do a dozen others where kids (especially girls) found their dad's porn and turned into raging whores by 12 years old.

This is a clear problem of sexual education on the behalf of the kids parents. Were the girls*1 would have been properly educated as to force protection against STD and pregnancy, there would be no problems as long as they fucked other highschoolers ...

1-When sex is involved Girls now have the power, if theirs parent teach them that concept correctly they should know it. Sure it must be awkward as hell to have to teach your child (it was for me as a child, I assume it was reciprocal) about those things but my parents did; therefore my sister and I, are better persons since ours parent have taken our education seriously even when it was unpleasant for them.

Re:Not a problem

[JonySuede]

There is hard data on the harm that exposure to violence create to the mental development of the kids, yet we allow them to watch Rambo, GI Joe and cie.... The donkey part is a bit heavy, and force me to argue for something I do not endorse, of for completely different reasons, but for this argument sake. I claim that until at least a retrospective studies on voluntary the exposure to bestiality in kids is made we can't know how it impact the development of the brain and as shocking as it sound it is factually less risky to fuck donkeys (or get fucked by) than it is to have unprotected sex with random strangers...

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

The basic principle that parents or parental communities create safe zones in which their off-spring can play and learn is something you can observe in nature, outside the human realm, as well. It really is a very basic principle.

Also, the fact that you think the kind of learning that adults experience is comparable in scope to the formative processes that a child's mind undergoes is, to be frank, stunningly ignorant.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

This only concerns images and video material. It is easy to stop reading a violent depiction. This is the first self-protection any reader will fairly easily acquire.

Not so easy to unsee an image.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

Yes, I want to censor what my kids get to see until they reached a certain age and maturity. There I said it.

You know what else I force them to do?

To eat healthy and regularly, to properly wipe their buts, to flush the toilet when they're done, to brush and floss their teeth (that was a real challenge) and to go to bed early, so they get a good night sleep, especially when school's on. Oh, and did I mention homework?

It's practically a complete regime of tyranny.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

Indeed.

Judging from the ignorance on display of some of these posters, makes me wonder if some of them are still teenagers and fear for their wikipedia porn backdoor.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

No and no.

Actually consider graphic depiction of the crucifixion as the equivalent of torture porn. Don't see any reason to expose my kids to that level of stupid yet either.

Re:Not a problem

[JonySuede]

another tangential note:

show me the data" is fine when it comes to something where the data exists. It's intellectually lazy when it comes to a discussion like this.

Not it's not, it only means that we have to produce that data as anecdotal evidence like yours and mine are not properly quantified. It would be hard to finance*1 but it would be relatively easy to randomly select about 10000 adults between [20 and 40]*2, ask them when were they exposed to porn for the first time and was it self-initiated, caused by peer-pressure or an abuser and have them pass tests on depression, sexual dependency, substances abuse and compile sociology-economics data. We should also repeat the test in other countries to account for the cultural context. After those studies we would exactly know when porn is harmful and when it's not.

1- Pro and anti porn groups are both afraid of the results. They both prefer not to know as long as we are in the dark they both have theirs existence justified.
2- Porn must have been easily available else the context is not the same; in social studies context is extremely important.

Re:Not a problem

[RightSaidFred99]

There is no such "hard data". There is a mixed bag of studies pointing any way you choose to make your argument. That's where this thing we non-Aspergers people call "common sense" comes in. In the absence of hard data, we use our life experience and basic reasoning skills to determine how we make decisions.

But I, for one, welcome our new donkey-porn watching child overlords.

Re:Not a problem

[JonySuede]

thank you, I hope that my broken English did not obfuscate the meaning of my post to much.

Re:Not a problem

[Andreas Kolbe]

Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Free_Ride

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-throating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_torture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture_(sexual_practice)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Old_Naughty_Days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogtie_bondage

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urolagnia&oldid=473408110

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wax_play

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_bondage

It's all well and good to have articles about these topics (although some of them are rather poorly written, and have been so for years). But anonymous Wikimedians are getting these images from an age-restricted section of Flickr, and are then sticking them into a non-age-restricted encyclopedia widely used by schoolchildren. Helpful templates like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:BDSM added at the bottom of articles lead enquiring minds to illustrated pages on every sexual kink in existence.

Re:Not a problem

[JonySuede]

No there are studies that shows that exposure to violence in young age is bad here are a small collection of recent abstracts :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22481072
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22308762
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21827218
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21708803
But if correct education is provided exposure to televised violence is neutral :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20876180
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21161351

Re:Not a problem

[RightSaidFred99]

Nice list of criticisms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_violence_research

And if you're a kneejerk "Wikipedialol"er, you can check the attributed sources.

Like I said, lots of studies confirming the link, lots not confirming.

That said, common sense again dictates that it would be harmful to let your kid watch nonstop Chucky and Saw.

Re:Not a problem

[JonySuede]

Yeah I am a knee-jerk Wikipedialoler, with it is treated as anything other than a good breadth first search in math*1, physic, chemistry, biology, so I clicked on some of the link provided.

The first link I check that was not a 404*1 was a link to a book about the violence problem in Russia I could not read the book but here is the abstract:

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states the right of children for information, but also for protection from information that might threaten their well-being and personal development. In societies that heavily expose children to media, the healthy development of democratic institutions and civil society can be greatly influenced by the impact of media violence on children's behavior and perception of society. An emphasis on this particular aspect of societal regulation of children's media viewing is strongly recommended by UN and UNESCO. Unfortunately, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has not succeeded in modern Russian society with regard to the media (television, cinema, video, PC-games) because scenes of hard violence persist on all Russian cinema and television screens. The infringement of the Rights of the Child on the Russian screen is a very important problem and Russian pedagogues should not only attract societal and governmental attention to it, but should also provide training and education about children and media violence.

the second was to a pdf that I was able to read, here is the abstract :

Over the past 50 years, the average news report has changed from claims of a weak link to a moderate link and then back to a weak link between media violence and aggression. However, since 1975, the scientific confidence and statistical magnitude of this link have been clearly positive and have consistently increased over time. Reasons for this discontinuity between news reports and the actual state of scientific knowledge include the vested interests of the news, a misapplied fairness doctrine in news reporting, and the failure of the research community to effectively argue the scientific case.

1- there is a great deal of bad link*2 in the source of that pages, please someone fix that as I am lazy when unpaid or not arguing!
2- 302 redirecting from a GET $[paper].pdf to a generic error page served with a response code of 200 when it should be set to 404

Re:Not a problem

[deroby]

Hi again,

And no, I don't think its unrealistic to have a parent or other guardian (babysitter, responsible older sibling, etc) keeping an eye on your kid at all times, online or offline.

Welcome to the real world Neo, it simply isn't. That said, it's not for lack of wanting or trying, it's a simple fact of only having two eyes/ears/hands... Try preparing a meal (no kids allowed near the hot stuff) and keeping an eye on them playing in the garden. Regardless of the big window they still manage to end up bruised etc in that time frame. And that's OK.
So far the worst we've had was having to take the eldest to the hospital once because she bumped her head rather hard and appeared a bit confused an hour later (false alarm in retrospect) and that was with me and my wife standing about 3m further on; you simply can't save them each time; Murphy I guess.

I'll try to give them as much (controlled) leeway as possible

The controlled there was implied 'by me' indeed; I wouldn't dream of leaving them unsupervised (by me) in a mall ... it probably will end up OK, but just maybe I'd have to max out my credit-card in damages =P

having some backup-systems at hand that help me out when I'm not there surely is a good thing!

It surely is, up until it starts impeding my life. Children would be a lot safer if the speed limit around the world was 5mph too. But much as we all like to think of the children, there comes a point where your desire to let your kid run around the yard unsupervised (risking an unnoticed trip into the street) starts impacting my desire to get where I'm going in a reasonable amount of time

Hence my push for 'optional', preferably opt-in. Having an option that helps me here is just as useful as that cap on the bottle of bleach. Sure it is stored away in such a way that they can't get to it easily but I have no hope that they never will. They know they should steer clear of those things too; I'm actually pretty sure I managed to convey the reasons why they shouldn't touch it and most probably they never will... but again having 100% confidence in that would be stupid. IF it ever comes to it I just hope that safety-cap will stop them just a bit longer; long enough for someone else to interfere or them to lose interest.
Anyway, as for the 5mph-everywhere comparison. I don't have a wall around my garden and in theory they could wander of onto the street. In this case I'm quite certain I did a good job teaching them not to. It's quite simple : back of house = good, front of house = bad. That said, in the case of clicking stuff on a website like wikipedia things are A LOT more complicated. Worse, it's quite easy to stumble on things unwanted without much warning; the search on wikipedia for toothbrush pictures as mentioned above comes to mind but I'll agree I still need to hit anything worth worrying about on that site and I've been using it quite often. But as unlikely as it is, it's bound to happen someday that clicking on [Random Page] will end up on goatse or whatever. Having that 'NSFW' option might prevent that. I don't see how me using it would deteriorate your experience ?

PS: I can see a LOT of discussion coming up on which pages should be NSFW and which not, cultural differences et all, but what should someone who doesn't use the option anyway care ? Has the internet become a worse place for you because some people installed NetNanny ?

Re:Not a problem

[tqk]

What've you got against seven year olds and midgits, you Nazi!

Re:Not a problem

[ultranova]

That's nice. Now answer the question: how is anyone supposed to know what you consider unsuitable for your child? And why do you think it's reasonable for Wikipedia to go through all its present and future data to apply your standards just to save you some trouble babysitting your own kid?

Re:Not a problem

[hobarrera]

Not really. Censoring NSFW stuff on an encyclopedia isn't the same as a TV show. There's educational purposes, it's for learning. While there are some extreme photos that don't need to be there, plenty of medical articles have adult content.

Where to draw the line is what's really hard, and the value of that bit depends on that line.

Re:Not a problem

[fredprado]

There isn't two kinds of learning, only one. You are not better, smarter, or even better prepared to deal with the unknown than your children, only your arrogance makes you think so. There is absolute no proof that seeing unusual sex pictures, playing violent games, watching action movies, or even porno movies do any harm at all to children, nor any data that even suggests it.

My parents never ever prohibited me from seeing and knowing anything, and I grew as a successful professional a husband and a father, even though I've been exposed to any sex and violence content (among any content at all) I bothered to look for since I can remember. In the same way there won't ever be any restrictions to what my children can or cannot see.

Knowledge is never harmful. Prejudice and ignorance are.

Re:Not a problem

[Pseudonym]

You say "thought control" like it's a bad thing, or like it's a one-size-fits-all thing. I don't know if you've ever had a close friend who was brought up in an abusive family, or a fundamentalist religion, or been through some kind of severe trauma when a child, but it really does scar someone for life. Exposure to a significant amount of modern pornography is that kind of harm.

Re:Not a problem

[Pseudonym]

This being slashdot, I figured most people here had experienced "those" kids at school.

Pornography is to sex as jocks are to witty banter.

Re:Not a problem

[fredprado]

Oh, and regarding your "safe zones" please, tell me a single animal that prevents its offspring from seeing anything, and in special any sexual act (no matter how forceful or odd) the adults perpetrate. Please do tell me.

Re:Not a problem

[Teancum]

For crying out loud, this isn't censoring, nor is it really hard to draw a line on this stuff.

If it is flagrant porn, the flag will go on. If it isn't, the flag will be there only because of a troll and be instantly reverted. If it is in dispute, there will be about 500k of discussion about the decision to put the flag on the content and the civil libertarians will be fighting the Puritans with a nearly constant edit war lasting a couple of years and result in ArbCom decisions with a few editors banned over the controversy.

The decision to put the flag on this content is done at the editor level... or perhaps at the "autoconfirmed user" level (like what you need to edit semi-protected content). It isn't that big of a deal and you can get that kind of status by simply participating on Wikipedia for four days. If you disagree with the flag, you can add it or remove it or join into that battle royale of discussion arguing over specific content and the application of the flag. You certainly don't need to worry about some faceless censoring committee. As for genuine medical photos... that can be dealt with on a case by case basis as well.

You can also choose to add this flag or not, and you as a parent can decide if you want to use this flag or not for your kids (it is originally opt-out). If you don't want to trip across some porn when randomly going through Wikipedia, you can filter that out or you can turn the switch off and have that stuff included. It is your choice. Censorship would be removing choices from people, and this does exactly the opposite as it expands the range of choices for you to use.

Re:Not a problem

[Teancum]

My problem with Larry Sanger is that he is all high and mighty about who should be privileged to write articles for Wikipedia and who shouldn't. He was the guy who started Nupedia, and his attitude about who might be qualified for writing encyclopedia articles was very restrictive and frankly snotty (or snobby) from my own POV. Basically he expected that the free encyclopedia would only be written by folks with a PhD and stubs by those with college degrees.... and you would only write articles in your field of expertise.

Basically his view of Wikipedia is that the deletionists should rule the day completely and get everything they ever hoped for and more to the point even the most hardcore deletionist would start to question why content was being removed. The only things that could stand up for references were things from published scholarly journals... certainly nothing pedestrian like a newspaper or popular magazine. Forget about blogs or anything found on the internet, that would be completely forbidden and it wouldn't even matter who wrote any of that content on-line.

There is also some general bad blood between many in the Wikipedia community and Larry Sanger for other reasons as well that go beyond this discussion, so it suffices to say there are many problems with what he says.

From that perspective, I take almost everything I hear from Larry Sanger with a grain of salt and generally dismiss almost everything he says, but in this case I tend to side with him so far as I think the suggestion is a good one so far as it is completely voluntary in its use and application. It doesn't censor a thing, is easily implemented, takes up very little room in the MediaWiki database, is easily monitored for abuse, and it doesn't require constant oversight by admins other than to step in and moderate discussions from time to time. Having a flag like this might even be a way for people to vent about various issues and certainly could be an option to bring up instead of forcing an AfD and all of the problems that creates.

If it only impacts a small amount of content, then even fighting this flag is something that seems trivial and stupid to do. You will never need to do anything about this flag other than reverting some troll who put it on a page where it isn't deserved at all and may even do a pretty good job of identifying trolls.

As for NPOV issues, I fail to see how this violates even the spirit of WP:NPOV or the general neutral POV philosophy of page development. If it was being used to delete content simply because that content might be controversial (try to look up the Wikibooks Jokebook some time for a real tragedy in that department) I would agree that is an issue. Content is being deleted from Wikipedia because it somehow offends certain religious and political groups and that should be fought against. That said, I don't see what this idea does other than creates something akin to creating a category label for content of various kinds and filters either for that category or against it. I suppose you could filter either for or against Star Trek related content as well and do pretty much the same thing. I wonder if that decision would be controversial?

Re:Not a problem

[Alsee]

There is no evidence either way.

Of course there is. The effect of pornography is an obvious and common research subject. And yes, of course there is a well established a relationship between pornography and and sex crimes in general, and rape and pedophilia in particular, teen pregnancy, and abusive objectification of women.

Studies have shown this to be true both on the individual level of sexual predators, and on the level of health of a society overall in overall sex crime rates and teen pregnancy.

Individuals convicted of sexual crimes extremely disproportionately were raised in sexually repressive homes. Individuals convicted of sexual crimes have disproportionately little or no porn. Several countries in recent history have changed their laws to legalize porn or liberalize it's availability, and such social changes have consistently been followed by a drop in rape and other sex crimes. Countries that are are most sexually repressive and/or ban pornography consistently have the highest rates of sex crimes, rape, abuse of women, and teen pregnancy. In Denmark pornography is widely available in most convenience stores, it may be freely purchased at the age of 15, hardcore pornography is freely broadcast on public TV at night, prostitution is legal, the age of consent is 15, possession of pornography of consenting 15 year olds is perfectly legal, sexual experimentation (playing doctor) starts early and is socially accepted a normal part of development, and the problem of teen pregnancy is virtually nonexistent. Denmark and other sexually non-repressive countries have a teen pregnancy rate 98% lower than the US. Japan is quite famous for the prevalent pornographic depictions of bondage and (fictional)rape, yet the rate of actual rapes being committed in Japan is about sixteen times lower than the US rape rate.

I haven;t even begun to put a dent in the hundreds of statistics and scientific studies that exist on the subject of pornography. They paint a clear and consistent picture that it is the attempt to repress, deny, and conceal the fact of human sexuality which is psychologically damaging to individuals and morally unhealthy to societies.

This is exactly the same as the horribly misguided efforts to impose abstinence-only education. Case after case, school after school, the results of abstinence-only education are clear and consistent. Abstinence-only education consistently results in higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs in our children. Abstinence education crusaders place ideology over facts and reality, they place ideology over the health of the children. The stubbornly ignore the result that they are increasing teen pregnancy and causing more children to be infected with sexually transmitted diseases. They place blind ideology of "protecting" children over the heath and the lives e children they are harming.

The exact same thing is happening with pornography. Anti-porn crusaders are playing their ideology that "porn is evil" and porn is harmful" above the lives and health of the people they are harming. Once you set aside all ideology of all sides and just look at the numbers, the fact is that societies that make porn legal and freely available reduce the occurrence of rape and other sex crimes, enjoy lower rates of teen pregnancy, have less violence against women in general, and higher rates of children raised in stable two-parent families.

The crusade against porn may be well intentioned, but the end result is the opposite of what was intended. Just like abstinence education, the actual result inflicts the very harm they wanted to prevent.

I'm just guessing how you might reply, but try not to toss out some ridiculous strawman about shoving porn in children's faces. Of course you don't park a child in front of some porno movie they have no understanding of and and no interest in. But nor do you traumatize a child by freaking out when they come across a breast (or more) somewhere in

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

So you want to pretend that there are not very clear and widely accepted standards available for what constitutes gratuitous violence and pornography?

Guess what, there is this industry called movie business and TV.

I no they are old media and that's why you may never have heard of them. They had the same kind of issues and came up with standards long time ago. Amazing isn't it?

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

Oh my! You are a father?

And you don't even bother with a quick search to double check if maybe your initial statements might be false.

Two minutes of web search:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/protect.aspx

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/03/media-violence.aspx

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00246.x/abstract

http://mediasmarts.ca/backgrounder/kids-net-seven-and-eight-year-olds

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/pr040527.cfm

BTW I am not concerned about simple nudity or a normal sex act, it is very specifically the mixture of aggression and sex that is most concerning. That is why I repeatedly cited "Fisting" and "Ball Torture".

Your comment has certainly ruined my day and is very depressing. I originally chalked this nonsense up to teenage immaturity. If you are in fact a parent and yet so proudly display your ignorance on this topic, then this is disturbing on many levels.

And yes, you are also entirely wrong about learning. You are essentially negating decades of neurological, psychological, AI and educational research. The key here is how category learning works and the path towards more abstract thought processes.

Don't think though that any of this will penetrate you pre-conceived notion.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403200097.html

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1641285

http://web.cs.dal.ca/~sraza/papers/Malay_journal.pdf

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

My point specifically was about creating a save zone for the off-spring which is quite common accross all mammals and is often also directed against male sexual aggression.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/functional-aspects-of-maternal-aggression-in-mammals/

To the extend that it is established that human children can suffer from depictions of violence this is an extension of this principle.

And yes, the detrimental impact on children by violence depicted in visual media is well established as illustrated by the various references that I already included in the other comment:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/protect.aspx

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/03/media-violence.aspx

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00246.x/abstract

http://mediasmarts.ca/backgrounder/kids-net-seven-and-eight-year-olds

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/pr040527.cfm

Re:Not a problem

[vakuona]

No one is barring the world. People are asking for people to give them the means to control certain aspects of their net experience, among these, the ability to block content they might find objectionable.

The whole OMG censorship is just a strawman.

Re:Not a problem

[fredprado]

One of your links is just a bunch of half-assed opinions. Two are studies about violence that don't reach any meaningful conclusion beyond "may". That I can do as well: You may have a heart attack in the next 30 years. It is certainly possible. And do you know why they only go as far as say "may"? Because they don't have enough data to back up any further claims without being sued. The last three of your links is even worse it has absolutely nothing to do with your attempt to champion censorship. They only describe theories about neurological development processes of infants and learning. One of them is about LEXICALISATION for gods sake and completely off topic. I know you are on the ropes here to try and justify what cannot be logically justified, but come on, don't force it...

Re:Not a problem

[tqk]

Female /.ers, please enjoy. :-)

As it turns out, most 12 year olds want to have sex due to biology; they don't need to see porn to get those urges.

I think I was about seven when I experienced my first "hardon"/erection. I had no idea what was going on at the time, I was alone in a swimming pool change room, and sex was utterly unknown to me at the time.

I just stood there naked feeling proud of myself for no reason, and the one guy who came into the room during it was kind enough to ignore the moment.

"Sex, what's that?!?" I had no idea that was supposed to be stuck, sorry inserted, into a female's vagina. At that age, I didn't even know females had vaginas.

Biology has its own rules. It doesn't need your brain to be involved in the process necessarily.

Re:Not a problem

[cavebison]

Fair enough, but porn isn't exactly harmless either. Same way alcohol is benign, until you start using it as a social crutch or in addictive ways. I've heard talks, by people who work with kids, who say continual exposure to porn in one's teens can have a detrimental effect on expectations of women in relationships.

The whole anal thing, for instance. Clueless young men can start to see it as an expectation of their clueless female partners. Watching porn isn't like watching a slasher film. You don't necessarily want to try chopping someone's head off, but you wouldn't mind trying a few things in the porn vid.

So I think it can - if we keep sweeping it under the carpet and not talking to kids about it properly - change the nature of sexual relationships. Relationships should be focussed on love and caring in the foremost, sex following from that. Porn, however, shows sex is a very unattached and uncaring fashion. I'm not anti-porn by any means, but - at the risk of being flamed - I think we DO need to "think of the kids".

Not ban the stuff, just explain it for what it is. Yes, kids know it's all an act, it's fiction, that's the not the point. The question is around how it influences behaviour and expectations within young relationships.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

You make two innate points:

(1) That exposure to violence in media has no influence on a developing mind.
(2) That there is only one kind of learning without a difference between adult and child learning.

The last links were about your point (2). Geez - shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Re:Not a problem

[Joe Decker]

I don't really know enough about Sanger's history to comment intelligently, I speculated, but tried to mark it as that, and tried to allow that it's pretty easy to have strong feelings about really gross sexual content. And I do understand some desire to keep inappropriate material from children.

The NPOV thing : The simplest example I can provide will be US-centric editors marking any form of non-sexual intimacy between two people of the same sex as content inappropriate for children. While that may not go as far as handholding, we will see (as we've seen in any filtering software ever deployed, particularly crowd-sourced ones) unequal application of what does and doesn't constitute "adult content".

A filter marking some images as "adult" and some not is a Wikipedia imposition of a point of view on a contentious subject--and it's not just "penises are adult", it will be, if every bit of past experience is an guide whatsoever, a situation where "male-male kisses are adult, female-female kisses are sometimes okay, male-female kisses aren't". You'll probably be able to see differences in the applications of these rules based on race or combinations of race too, there's a surprising percentage of people in the US who would ban interracial marriage--look it up.

I'd be less bothered by filters that said "has a penis", "has a boob", etc. But "adult content", "inappropriate for children", that's a fussy, subjective, and even in this thread highly-contested bar.

Re:Not a problem

[Hognoxious]

Where to draw the line is what's really hard

Huh huh.

And, in respect of WP:NPOV: heh heh.

Re:Not a problem

[AthanasiusKircher]

I would like him to be able to access Wikipedia unsupervised

And there's the meat of it. You want to give your kid the internet, but you don't trust him (rightfully so) to judge content.. but you also can't be bothered to do it yourself.

Umm, have you taken a few moments to think about how this would actually work in practice, assuming you allow your kid any freedom to want to explore anything? Child: "Daddy, I want to be a dentist. Can I search for some files on Wikipedia that might show me some pictures of toothbrushes?"

Dad: "Umm, sure..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=toothbrush&fulltext=Search

Dad: "Oh crap... uh, Jr., let Daddy just click back and..."

Your solution would require Dad to require Jr. to exit the room before just about any click on any link, so he can pre-screen any page on Wikipedia that Jr. might want to look at, even something innocuous like a search on "toothbrush."

So you want everyone else on the internet to spend their time and resources essentially babysitting your kid for you.

Well, I think a lot of parents out there would be interested in helping to police such things. It may not be perfect, and different parents may have somewhat different opinions, but a consensus can probably be reached for a lot of parents. (And if not, let them split into groups and make a couple different filters.) Let them create the filter and police it themselves if they want -- it can be crowdsourced among parents. If you don't like the darn thing, turn it off! How is this hurting you?

If you want your kid to be safe on the internet, then monitor his usage, just as you would (hopefully) monitor him in any other public setting.

Yeah, that's true. But in most public settings you don't generally have the expectation that if your child turns the knob and opens an unlocked door labeled with some innocuous word that he'll find people participating in some random sex act. Sure, you might say -- the parent should have looked behind the door first. Well, if you want to teach your child anything about independence and let him have the ability to explore a little bit, it's nice to have a relatively safe place where he can explore without worrying about random encounters with "bad" stuff (however that is defined). There are plenty of places people can take kids with the reasonable expectation that if they go around a corner or open a door, they won't happen upon random sex acts. Is it that unreasonable to let a group of people work on a filter that would at least allow the option for parents to treat Wikipedia as such a place?

I'm not saying that it would be easy to create such a thing or that everybody is going to agree about every image or whatever. But is the idea itself so completely ridiculous? Does it necessarily imply that anyone who would use it is a terrible parent who wants to shirk duties?

Re:Not a problem

[ultranova]

So you want to pretend that there are not very clear and widely accepted standards available for what constitutes gratuitous violence and pornography?

Widely accepted standards say that trying to turn other people into unpaid babysitters because you don't want to spend time overseeing your 7-year old kid is wrong. Since you obviously don't agree, we can't possibly know how your standards may deviate from those of a normal person in any other subject.

Guess what, there is this industry called movie business and TV.

So, this is now officially about turning Wikipedia into a new-age TV nanny?

I no they are old media and that's why you may never have heard of them. They had the same kind of issues and came up with standards long time ago. Amazing isn't it?

Sorry, but no. The ratings there refer to the presence of sex, and in case of XXX movies explicit sex, not whether the sex was "gratuitous" by some neglicent parent's definition. Furthermore, there's a difference between entertainment and encyclopedia, specifically that entertainment gets to choose its topics and content while an encyclopedia gets them dictated by surrounding reality. Finally, there's a difference of orders of magnitude between the sheer amount of stuff in Wikipedia and media industry's output.

And you still haven't answered the question of just who is going to shift through the archive and new edits and mark them suitable or unsuitable for 7-year olds.

Re:Not a problem

[hairyfish]

What evidence is there that porn is bad for children?

None. I grew up on a steady diet of porn and turned out ok. If anything it was probably part of the growing process. When my mum found my mags she threw them out and told me not to bring them in the house. Sure it didn't stop me, but I learnt about boundaries, and how to hide stuff better :)

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

And you still haven't answered the question of just who is going to shift through the archive

It's a wiki.

Everybody should be able to set the flag. Would be happy to help with this if such a flag existed.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

You understand that the suggestion was that the filter was by default off, and you would have to opt in for it to come into effect?

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

Yes, parents get to see and do what children are not allowed to.

The horror. What is the world coming to!

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

You'd do much better to try to prepare them for the horrors of the world than to try to shield them from it.

I actually agree. But this doesn't mean that they should accidentally come across these horrors while surfing the web.

To the extend that I want to grant them some autonomy on the computer, filters are a useful tool and I am currently using the OpenDNS one.

Re:Not a problem

[Larry Sanger]

I'm not sure why I'm replying to this, out of all the daft things that have come from this thread--maybe because I'm annoyed when people get history wrong. "Teancum," whoever you are, you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. I am the guy who started Wikipedia. There is lots of documentation of this on larrysanger.org. I did NOT think that one had to have a Ph.D. to write articles for Wikipedia. I'm the guy who tried to get everyone working together--even kids. Others have said this about me, but they weren't there, or if they were, they're lying. I am not, in fact, a "deletionist." I am an inclusionist. I think people should be able to write about whatever their heart desires, as long as there is a chance of there being a full complement of articles of that type. If people want to have articles about every Star Trek episode, go for it, as long as you can cover all of them. Finally, even if there is "bad blood" between me and the current Wikipedia community--not the original one, mind you--that hardly means "there are many problems with what he says," unless you are a cultist who believes that "the Wikipedia community" is inerrant. Otherwise, thanks for your support.

Re:Not a problem

[Sardaukar86]

So?

If you think censorship is evil in all forms, well then go fuck yourself cause that makes you just as much a ignorant fuck as the people pushing filters on everyone. You're an idiot if you can't understand why censorship exists and what benefits (not just the costs) it brings.

You really are an unbelievably arrogant cunt with nothing useful to say.

Re:Not a problem

[hobarrera]

The decision to put the flag on this content is done at the editor level... or perhaps at the "autoconfirmed user" level (like what you need to edit semi-protected content). It isn't that big of a deal and you can get that kind of status by simply participating on Wikipedia for four days. If you disagree with the flag, you can add it or remove it or join into that battle royale of discussion arguing over specific content and the application of the flag. You certainly don't need to worry about some faceless censoring committee. As for genuine medical photos... that can be dealt with on a case by case basis as well.

Yes, it's done at an editor level, but editor's need guidelines. Some will want to add the "porn flag" to everything with nudity, others will accept art with nudity as non-porn. Or maybe medical articules like "female reproductive organ".
A guideline needs to be written, a guidelines that indicates where to draw the line; and that's the issue; where to draw it.

You can also choose to add this flag or not, and you as a parent can decide if you want to use this flag or not for your kids (it is originally opt-out). If you don't want to trip across some porn when randomly going through Wikipedia, you can filter that out or you can turn the switch off and have that stuff included. It is your choice. Censorship would be removing choices from people, and this does exactly the opposite as it expands the range of choices for you to use.

Parents are responsable for their kid's education, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that whould provide acurate, complete and neutral information, that's the difference.

Re:Not a problem

[Teancum]

I'm sorry that I may have received the wrong impression on this issue. This was one of the reasons I simply flat out refused to be involved with Nupedia once I started to get into the project, even though I was an early supporter of the idea and was a part of the group brought forward with Richard Stallman when he merged the Gnupedia project with Nupedia.

I was told flat out by several of the early organizers that I was not welcome to write for either Nupedia nor Wikipedia early on, so I quietly left both projects for a number of years until I found out about Wikibooks, and sort of came in through a back way into Wikipedia once things started to get better established. If my own recollection is a bit murky that was a great many years ago and I can't really tell you who was speaking with authority and who wasn't at the time because it is all jumbled together and I was sort of sitting on the sidelines trying to help with the technical side of things until my own efforts were thrown under the bus.

I sort of thought you were supportive of that attitude at the time, and if my memory is faulty on this issue I sincerely apologize. Some of those e-mails that went back and forth are now lost to crashed hard drives and abandoned computers of long ago so it is hard for me to document what specifically happened.

It is unfortunate as well that I wasn't able to help out with some of that early development effort, as I think I could have helped to contribute as well.

Regardless, as a parent of several children who use Wikipedia as a resource (where I've taught them critical source evaluation skills and even writing skills because of Wikipedia), I am concerned about the completely unfiltered nature of Wikipedia and how some of the content really isn't something I would like them to be viewing. I don't understand what the opposition is here for a completely voluntary to use and to enact system of content labeling for mature content.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

There is no punishment to keep them away from disturbing material. This is simply about blunting the edges. Just like you don't give a sharp adult pair of scissors to a child but rather a more blunt kid version.

Everybody here jumps to the conclusion that this is about absolute shielding of the children, but of course this is impossible. It is just about slightly delaying the inevitable while at the same time given more time to parents to prepare them for the nasty realities that life will throw at them.

The black and white rigidity on display here is stupefying.

Re:Not a problem

[DerekLyons]

BTW, I don't mind Jimmy Wales voicing his opinion in these situations, my beef is when he acts unilaterally ignoring any sort of consensus building process at all.

Haven't you figured it out yet? Wikipedia is, and always has been, Jimmy Wales's private chew toy.

Re:Not a problem

[mcgrew]

I've never seen porn on Wikipedia, because I've never looked for it.

There are even worse images than goatse. Look up the wiki article on "vitrectomy". (Yes, I underwent that procedure. Not fun.)

Re:Not a problem

[fredprado]

And your links do absolutely nothing in refuting any of them.

1) Nobody has been able to offer any scientific proof that exposure to violence has any significant and negative effect on a "developing mind". You can find a thousand articles of psychologists saying that it "may be" and a thousand others disagreeing with this theory.

2) Nobody has been able to define in a objective way what is a "developing mind". There are differences between the cognitive process of a children and an adult, but there are as many differences between the cognitive process of a children and another children and an adult and another adult. By seeing only the former and ignoring the last you fall into a scientific bias. Even defining what is a "child" is subjective to be honest and varies from country to country and through time. Besides that the point is, no matter how different 2 minds are, there is still, by definition, only one kind of learning, and that consists in absorbing information, period. The way you deal with that information varies, from people to people, but age is just one of a myriad of factors that influence this process.

Re:Not a problem

[cheekyjohnson]

When you dehumanize a person, you can justify any crime you carry out upon them

You can do that even without dehumanizing them.

If we're not aware of its capacity to harm someone like encouraging someone's guilt or inciting a war, our naivete could allow gross forms of injustice to occur.

Not sure what that has to do with porn on Wikipedia, though.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

This is sophistry of the highest order.

So in your words there is always only one kind of "learning" although the "cognitive" processes underlying this learning may vary.

But apparently in your world there is really no need for science to take a closer look at what these difference are, as you happily move the goal posts even further and put away with the concept of childhood altogether.

When you argue that "child" is a subjective term then of course there can be no science associated with it. Child psychology, developmental neurology all pseudo-sciences if we go by your rhetoric.

And let me clue you in on the meaning of the term "may" when used by scientists. Science when based on statistical inference always has uncertainty associated with it. To give you another example: The world may be much warmer 50 years from now if we don't get CO2 emissions under control.

Yep, you are using the very same rhetorical techniques as global warming deniers. You should maybe think of changing your career path. Skillful science denialism can pay well if you find the right "thinktank".

Re:Not a problem

[Joe Decker]

So, you're entirely okay with complete descriptions of those subjects, no problem whatsoever, it's just the illustrations of it you object to.

I'm genuinely surprised. In my experience, most people who have an objection to one have an objection to both.

Re:Not a problem

[Joe Decker]

Since you're clearly experienced with Wikipedia, I'll put it in Wikiparlance.

You can't define "mature content" without a POV.

That's the fundamental problem. Now, as it turns out, I happen to believe in a few cases (particularly with respect to the popular American idea that the EXISTENCE of gay people is a mature topic), it's a particularly egregious concern with respect to NPOV. But the fundamental problem is simply that it's POV.

Re:Not a problem

[fredprado]

Sophistry is what you have been spilling in this thread since the beginning.

To learn is to absorb knowledge, what you infer from this knowledge varies from person to person, but there is a way to correct wrong conclusions and that is... more knowledge.

And I have to agree with at least one of your statements psychology as it is practiced by most professionals nowadays is indeed at best pseudo-science. Neurology is not, at least most of the time, but the field holds still too many unknowns to be able to reach the conclusions you want it to reach.

The comparison with Global Warming is valid to a point. The world will be warmer 50 years from now in these conditions, that much is scientifically provable. The term "much" on the other hand is a subjective word, and therefore makes your affirmation scientifically useless, at least until you define exactly what you mean by much. When you do we can then go ahead and you can try to prove with some degree of certainty that the warming will be within a reasonable range around your figure. You may or may not be able to do so regarding Global warming, but in the case you are trying to make relating exposure to violent scenes and negative effects on children nobody was able even to make a scientifically convincing theory, much less produce any prove that could survive scrutiny from other scientists.

Re:Not a problem

[quax]

Yep, as I said a great career world in lobbying is open to you (if you're not already in that line of business).

You can always demean and denigrate science that is based on statistics and muddy the water when the science is expressed in simple language.

Really not interested in wasting any more time on this pointless debate of empty rhetoric.

Have a nice day.

Re:Not a problem

[Teancum]

Why not simply filter content based upon categorization, where you can filter or not filter content based upon pre-selected categories (of your own choosing)? If that happens to include in the "filter out" list of categories those items which fit in "Category: Porn Stars" and "Category: Adult Themes", how is that different from what is being proposed?

If you want, you can filter out "Category: Star Trek" or "Category: Republican Party" from your own personal search filters. That isn't really a POV... or is it?

Re:Not a problem

[Vegemeister]

My definition of childhood includes a period of innocence, or a freedom from some knowledge that's usually difficult for people to make sense of. For instance, we don't confront children with knowledge of death (if we can avoid doing so), because death is difficult even for adults. Why burden a child with something that many adults can't bear? Children exposed to enough "adult" concepts (death, sex, violence, etc.) aren't children for long.

What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re:Not a problem

[fredprado]

Suit yourself, my good sir. Everybody is free to hold to their dogmas, no matter how illogical they may be. I reckon it is more comfortable this way.

Re:Not a problem

[Andreas Kolbe]

What astonishes me about these discussions is that everyone argues from first principles, as though Wikimedia were the first outfit ever to have a website with some adult content. They're not. There're well-established conventions around hosting adult content that all major players adhere to -- except Wikimedia.

I see no one complaining about Google Safe Search, or Flickr's Restricted category, or YouTube's 18 rating, but when the question is asked why Wikimedia isn't doing what everybody else does, a hue and a cry is raised as though Wikimedia were asked to do something completely unreasonable that had never been asked of anyone else on the Internet before.

Just remember: Wikimedia growing adult content includes videos showing dog-on-nun sex, glory holes, and homo- and heterosexual penetration of any orifice imaginable, material that is attracting hundreds of thousands of page views. No other website would make this sort of thing available unfiltered, and get away with advertising itself as helping little girls in Africa.

Re:Not a problem

[Andreas Kolbe]

Using factual labels, or the Commons category system, was actually the idea. Another part of the idea was letting users and user groups compile filter lists according to their own preferences, by adding individual files or categories. In other words, have people crowdsource filter lists, according to various criteria. Other users would then be able to pick these filter lists and add them to their own Wikimedia account, adapt them as appropriate, etc. In other words, a filter list would be much like an editor's watchlist – something totally personal and private that each editor could adjust as they wished. There would be no pre-defined filters from the Wikimedia side. See e.g. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Reformulation_of_the_Proposal:_Personal_filter_lists and other, similar proposals on that page.

Re:Not a problem

[Joe Decker]

As I recall, there was a lot of negative pushback on that idea on the basis of usability, but I don't have the links at hand.

Re:Not a problem

[Joe Decker]

As long as they're filters created by individuals, I don't see a problem for me.

But practically speaking, user's aren't going to want to configure that, which is why the design mockups just had a single pushbutton, as I recall, for adult content.

Re:Not a problem

[Andreas Kolbe]

There was a lot of negative pushback on anything to do with filtering. :) But at the end of the day, we cannot show bestiality videos to kids, and expect to survive in the court of public opinion. Especially while implying that we are trying to help children in the third world with Wikipedia. Have you seen Larry's YouTube video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4Z9qunAc4

He didn't even use the worst results he could have.

Re:Not a problem

[Andreas Kolbe]

Again, you can have people crowdsourcing lists according to various criteria, and give people the option to import them into their account settings. I am sure there would be people around who would be happy to develop filter lists.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn and other material most parents don't want their kids stumbling across. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. "

So?

"Nevertheless, children remain some of Wikipedia's heaviest users."

So?

Re:So?

[Sigma 7]

Kids are easily f*cked up. If your response to that is "So?", then you might be a sociopath.

Kids are already f*cked up because they are placed in environments that f*ck them up.

They aren't going to receive a lifelong emotional trauma just by looking at some genitalia. In fact, there's more serious threats to their emotional well being, including misapplication of religion, improper/incomplete education, or an unsafe physical environment.

Once those problems have been solved in a general case, you can then worry about Wikipedia.

Re:So?

[ToastedRhino]

I'm not sure if you didn't RTFA or are just a really, really angry person. As far as I can tell this actually IS about parents wanting to "take responsibility for [their] own" by turning on a filter to limit what their kids can see. You seem, based on this and your other comment on this story, to be upset that the filter is on Wikipedia's end instead of the person's PC, but why in the world that matters is beyond me. Or maybe you didn't take the time to notice that it would be opt-in and not turned on by default, therefore having absolutely zero effect on you.

It's interesting that you quote Twain's definition of censorship in another one of your posts:
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have steak, because a baby can't chew it."

That's not what's happening here. You get to choose whether to turn ON the filter. Using Twain's analogy: The steak is all yours, but if you don't want your baby who can't chew it to choke to death, now you can let us know and request that we not serve steak to your child.

Sees reasonable to me.

Re:So?

[lightknight]

And what? How does this compare to the numerous videos of violence (car accidents) online?

You people and your social mores; haven't you inherited anything better than a preconceived notion of how the world should operate?

Re:So?

[rohan972]

Kids are easily f*cked up. If your response to that is "So?", then you might be a sociopath.

Are kids really that easily fucked up that looking at a picture or video will ruin them? I'd say that institutionalized bullying at schools is a far greater concern than access to porn in terms of damage done. There have been mass shootings at schools in response to bullying, what damage can you demonstrate from porn?

You clearly want us all to know you're saying "fucked" yet you replace the u with an asterisk. What do you think you're achieving? Are your thoughts or words more pure because you deliberately spelled fuck incorrectly? Is your post now harmless to children, whereas another u in the wrong spot would traumatize them? Your post is a great demonstration of the mentality of people who desire censorship.

Re:So?

[Johann Lau]

That's a mighty lousy strawman you got there. Care to try again?

Re:So?

[Johann Lau]

That's also a strawman. Walls and paper are "unfiltered", too -- you never know when someone might draw or write something on them, but hey, you'll deal with that when it happens. We do the same with websites. So much for you cynicsm about family-friendlyness -- nobody has got their knickers in a twist other than you guys. Not wanting to show mutilated dicks to children, or being able to educate within the law, doesn't require mental feebleness, even people with nerves made of steel can do it.

No, that "random things can happen" is not the issue with Wikipedia. Those disputed materials are there because they fit in *somewhere* (otherwise they'd just be deleted, after all) --- it's just that it's the adult section where they fit, and that it is mixed with non-adult stuff, i.e. there isn't even a lousy bit to mark them. That both adult and non-adult sections have walls and paper on which random stuff can be written, is unrelated, and would still be the case if there was such a filtering bit.

How would such a filtering bit "ruin it for the rest"? You just make that claim, with nothing to back it up. I say it's the opposite, *not* doing that ruins it for large areas of use, with *zero* added benefit for anyone else. Doing it would mean *no* drawback to anyone else (it would actually make things like "only show the stuff marked as adult" possible haha), and make wikipedia usable in schools. Maybe not for little kids, and it doesn't need to be. But ffs, why shut out teenagers? Just to passive-aggressively get back at what you consider to be pointless prudery?

Everything just in one bucket hampers real education efforts. What real education efforts would be hampered by marking adult content as such? Your total lack of arguments is kinda weak. "Just download it and filter it" (will you pay the taxes for it, and/or accept less teaching time?), vs. "simply don't request filtered content from wikipedia" (the real costs for wikipedia here are "making a decision and a few engineering choices", once that's done the worker bees will basically implement it for free in the medium term), and with a straight face? No. Not even a nice try.

Re:So?

[CanHasDIY]

I'm not sure if you didn't RTFA or are just a really, really angry person.

Neither, just fed up with bad parent's expectation that society do their child-rearing for them. The way I see it, if I wanted to be responsible for children I would have some of my own.

As far as I can tell this actually IS about parents wanting to "take responsibility for [their] own" by turning on a filter to limit what their kids can see.

Negatory - 'taking responsibility' implies doing the filtering yourself, not whining to the Powers-That-Be that other people aren't doing it for you. Big difference.

FYI, most if not all modern ISPs and network equipment manufacturers include parental controls in their products and services, so there's really no excuse for not doing your own filtering other than laziness... and I guess malice, since there's probably at least 1 or 2 people out there who intentionally allow their kids to be exposed to things like pron, thus giving themselves a justification for demanding censorship.

You seem, based on this and your other comment on this story, to be upset that the filter is on Wikipedia's end instead of the person's PC, but why in the world that matters is beyond me.

I am "upset" at the concept that such a filter would be mandatory for site owners to include; put simply, because your kids (or anyone else's for that matter) are not Wikipedia's responsibility. Granted, if they want to voluntarily include such a filter, that's up to Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be a forced action..

It's akin to demanding GM put ignition interlocks on every vehicle that prevent starting until all seatbelts are fastened, because your own offspring won't wear theirs.

Or maybe you didn't take the time to notice that it would be opt-in and not turned on by default, therefore having absolutely zero effect on you.

Doesn't matter, still wrong regardless of what effect it has on me (although this sentence does provide a sterling example of what's wrong with society these days - the idea that injustice/evil/hate/malice/etc is acceptable, so long as it "doesn't affect me")

It's interesting that you quote Twain's definition of censorship in another one of your posts:

Ignoring, as is immaterial to this particular discussion (also, as it turns out, not actually a Twain quote... whoops).

My point is, if Wikipedia or anyone else wants to voluntarily include a self-censorship option on their site to calm the manufactured FUD of the piss-poor-parenting crowd, that's their prerogative. I take issue with the idea of making such a system mandatory for site operators to include, which tends to happen when shitty parents fail to take responsibility for what they allow their offspring to be exposed to.

What porn

[Sperbels]

I've never seen any porn on wikipedia. I've seen some nudity before...but porn?

Re:What porn

[YodasEvilTwin]

Read the article. There's quite a bit.

Re:What porn

[SuricouRaven]

A matter of definition. To some people, all nudity is porn. I've even met one person online who was outraged at the display maniquins used in a store window because they were provocatively posed and wearing lingerie.

Re:What porn

[Frosty Piss]

It probably depends on how one is defining "porn".

For example, if you look up ejaculation, you will see sever enormous well formed penises. One series is a set of stills that show the progression of a giant cock spewing copious quantities of cum, the other is a video of some guy shooting giant gobs of jizz like a fire hose.

Some might say it's an educational depiction of exceptioally well hung guys doing something natural, some might call it "porn"...

Re:What porn

[BlackSnake112]

I was thinking the same thing. Then again I have never looked up porn positions/acts on Wikipedia.

Then again, did this story drive up Wikipedia's page hits today? Maybe this is nothing more then an attempt to drive up the numbers.

Re:What porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you look up "human female" in Wikipedia's file search, this is what you see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=100&redirs=0&profile=images&search=human+female For males, it looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=human+male&fulltext=Search Educational? In some twisted sense, yes. But images of women peeing are not what people expect from an "encyclopedia".

Re:What porn

[Frosty Piss]

Well, yeah, but Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Britannica. These pictures are of people doing things that people do. The question might be "how 'gratuitous' is the image?"

Re:What porn

[g253]

Uh, what? I've had a look, and there is indeed a video and an image composed of four stills. Both depict an ejaculation adequately. The two gentlemen in the pictures are average. They would be considered small by porn standards. The amount of semen is average too. No stimulation of the genitals is shown.

If you want to illustrate an encyclopedic article about ejaculation with something better than a drawing, this is as modest and "decent" as it can possibly be. It may technically be porn, but it is very clearly meant to inform, not to arouse.

Links?

[s0lar]

So, do we have any good links?

Re:links?

[YodasEvilTwin]

Main link is the last one in the summary: http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/

porn? where?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been contributing to the Wikipedia for seven years.

Not once - not ONCE - in that time have I seen porn on the Wikipedia.

Re:links?

[Eponymous Hero]

no no no -- links to the porn, obviously...

Hmmm...

[SarekOfVulcan]

I wonder why Larry Sanger could possibly have an interest in making WP look problematic.

Re:Hmmm...

[melikamp]

You've made my thread :)

Piffle

[koan]

Never seen anything resembling porn on Wikipedia, granted I'm not looking for it, but without a link to the alleged porn I'm calling BS.

Re:Piffle

[Carnildo]

Try the article on pornography. I'm pretty sure it's illustrated.

Re:Piffle

[koan]

Nothing offensive there.

"Extremely gross porn"?

[PCM2]

I followed a bunch of the links on Sanger's site just to see what he's talking about. Having a dozen or so videos of male ejaculation seems excessive. But a lot of the rest of it is 19th century French engravings, naughty postcards, and the like. Is that stuff appropriate for Wikipedia, even out of historical interest? I don't think that's for an automated filter to decide. Given that most home Internet connections don't have comprehensive content filters installed, I also think "the children" are about four clicks away from far raunchier material than that.

Re:"Extremely gross porn"?

[broken_chaos]

There's also a lot of self-made porn that just seems like it's done because the 'creator' gets off on exhibitionism.

Concept of "pornography"

[mykos]

Doesn't the very concept of pornography go against the core reasons for Wikipedia's existence?

Re:Concept of "pornography"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Otherwise 90% of the other things that get deleted off Wikipedia wouldn't be.

True, there is a significant contingent that believes everything belongs on Wikipedia with no removal, however that has never reached consensus, and even finds itself in disfavor in some quarters.

pics or it didn't happen

[Eponymous Hero]

you know the rules

links

[hldn]

everyone is asking for links, and since i know reading the article isn't in the plans....

needless to say NSFW.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers&oldid=66888173
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:GIF_videos_of_male_masturbation&oldid=67780152
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sexual_intercourse_with_vaginal_lubricative_fluid.jpg

etc etc

Re:links

[aquabat]

Got any links to Wikipedia proper? Or do we consider sister sites under the Wikimedia Foundation all together for this discussion? (I read the summary as referencing only Wikipedia).

Re:links

[avandesande]

I think they should run with it- the wikipedia concept is great for spicy subjects and has value for the curious. Set up a 'wikipediaxxx' site and push anything inappropriate on wikipedia proper there....

Re:links

[lilburne]

Link did you want? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=bell%20tolling&fulltext=Search&profile=images&redirs=0 What is most amusing about all of this is the NSFW monikers that people are adding, cos you know that sometimes even if you want porn, you know that now isn't the best time to be viewing it.

Re:links

[RenHoek]

I only clicked a handful of the actual images, but most of them give "No pages link to this file" or it links to some user's Talk page.

So it means you won't get to these images if you just use the Wiki as you normally would.

So where is the problem really?

Re:links

[rubycodez]

those are all boring and not titillating in any way; those are therefore not pornography. I would find a painting of a women by Vargis more pornographic than those photos.

Re:links

[Joe Decker]

Commons is the main image host for the English Wikipedia, there are a few cases where images are hosted on ENWIKI itself, but if possible things end up at Commons so they can be reused.

So the links are fair.

Re:porn? where?

[MPolo]

I have also not seen anything in this category. Certainly there are some articles that many parents might not like their children to see, but education and supervision is probably a better solution than any filter Wikipedia could manage to install. Of course, boys of a certain age are going to find it regardless of what the parents do.

Not really fixable

[mcavic]

I don't think it's more of a problem on Wikipedia than anywhere else on the Internet. First, they should require that people sign in before editing. The problem with a filter is that it would be difficult to prevent kids from opting out. Even on YouTube, all you have to do is click a button agreeing that you're at least 18.

What problem?

[Hentes]

I have neer seen porn on Wikipedia, though truth to be told I have never searched for it. But if someone does it's reasonable to assume that they do want to see porn, isn't it?

Re:What problem?

[lilburne]

And what if they aren't searching for porn? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=coddle&fulltext=Search

Re:What problem?

[Joe Decker]

Then they'll get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coddle, not the link you provided.

Look, this is stupid

[doston]

If your kids look for porn, they're going to find it. Who cares if it's on Wikipedia especially? If it is, it's likely for informational purposes. I don't think Wikipedia was designed to be a porn site. If your kids want to look at porn, I suggest parental software and supervision. Take some responsibility for your kids. Reminds me of Kyle's mom on South Park going after Terrance and Philip. Anyway, who cares if your kids see sex? They're going to see it anyway. You might as well banalize it now. Try to be a little more French and a little less Tea Bagger; your kids will be the better for it.

Re:Look, this is stupid

[YodasEvilTwin]

It's obviously not perfect but it can be helpful to have SOMETHING between the kids and the pr0n. Policing your kids isn't bulletproof either, you simply can't do it all the time without chaining them in the basement. I don't see how a somewhat helpful optional filter is problematic given that it seems pretty easy to implement and there's probably people willing to donate to it if they went that route. If you had kids you would probably see the difference between "young kids seeing sex" and "young kids seeing mutilation, simulated rape," etc. etc.

Re:Look, this is stupid

[doston]

It's obviously not perfect but it can be helpful to have SOMETHING between the kids and the pr0n. Policing your kids isn't bulletproof either, you simply can't do it all the time without chaining them in the basement. I don't see how a somewhat helpful optional filter is problematic given that it seems pretty easy to implement and there's probably people willing to donate to it if they went that route. If you had kids you would probably see the difference between "young kids seeing sex" and "young kids seeing mutilation, simulated rape," etc. etc.

Show me ONE link ONE photo of any of those things in Wikipedia. Just one. So far, I've seen an 18th century artistic representation of missionary style sex. That's called art. Yeah, I have a problem with your precious "filtering" software, when no problem exists. Also, please explain the difference between "filtering" and censorship. It's the same thing.

Re:Look, this is stupid

[lilburne]

Just one eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=forefinger&fulltext=Search

Re:Look, this is stupid

[misexistentialist]

Probably all sexuality will be added to the filter. Kids will have create webshows for pedophiles for the money to buy ancient copies of Britannica to satisfy their curiosity about human reproduction.

Re:Look, this is stupid

[doston]

Just one eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=forefinger&fulltext=Search

Would you rather my dad teach me? Would you like to teach your kid to whack off, have him learn from a friend (real close and personal like), or would you like him to learn how to wank it from the comfort of his own bed. The results you have there aren't exactly blatino on white interracial gang bang double penetration videos.

Re:Look, this is stupid

[lilburne]

Whether your Dad whacks you off whilst you have your head in the sand, or not is really besides the point for this discussion.

Re:Look, this is stupid

[zyzko]

I do not know a kid stupid enough to image-search "forefinger" without actually wanting to get to the page you linked. And for those who did not click it - it shows a couple of animated gifs of a guy masturbating - also a picture of a handgun. That stuff that you will also see in the ads of torrent sites advertising pill to grow your penis.

I'm not defending wikipedia - I think they should enforce "no porn" rule - as in you can show excerpts of Kamasutra (it is available in the US in libraries, right?) but no cucumber-insertions just for fun, those can be googled easily enough from elsewhere and serve of no additional value - but I have a really hard time believing it is an actual problem for casual users to stumble upon porn accidentally.

Re:Look, this is stupid

[Old Wolf]

The most shocking thing about this article, to me, is the number of people who think it's quite OK for children to view porn.

Re:Look, this is stupid

[doston]

The most shocking thing about this article, to me, is the number of people who think it's quite OK for children to view porn.

That's because a 5 year old won't know what he's looking at anyway and you'll never a stop 14 year old viewing it in your wildest fascist dreams, so what do you recommend? Shut the internet down to "protect the children"? Censor everything? Forget it. How about watch your fucking kids closer? Do you expect others to want to protect your children? Watch out for your own seems a simpler solution. If nobody cares enough to watch out for them, they've got bigger problems coming than seeing online porn.

Wikipedia was reported to the FBI

[tepples]

Until I read this headline, I didn't even know there was pornographic material on Wikipedia.

Then you must have missed these three stories earlier on Slashdot.

I take exception on behalf of Jimmy Wales at the notion that anyone would concern themselves with a "problem" on his website.

When someone reports your allegedly illegal porn to the FBI, of course you take action to keep the FBI from taking down all WMF sites and arresting people.

Re:Wikipedia was reported to the FBI

[David Gerard]

"When someone reports your allegedly illegal porn to the FBI, of course you take action to keep the FBI from taking down all WMF sites and arresting people."

It turns out the needed action was 0. Larry is trolling for attention again.

Re:Wikipedia was reported to the FBI

[Sardaukar86]

Anyone with a clue missed the stories you linked too. Who reads crap timothy and kdawson approve? Its almost certainly going to be wrong and a load of crap topped with a heaping of editoral opinion just in case you weren't quick enough to realize the story only made it to the front page because one of those fucktards actually believes the bullshit submitted.

Sorry, you lose all credibility by mentioning a kdawson or timothy story.

You're a fine one to talk about credibility, O empty-headed spouter of unreferenced nonsense.

Oh, and I wouldn't go calling people 'fucktards' in your position, as you pretty much epitomise the term.

Re:Links?

[YodasEvilTwin]

Links to sample porn aren't on-topic in articles about porn stars?

Re:links?

[Samantha Wright]

No, no, no – just use a text browser, obviously...

Re:porn? where?

[YodasEvilTwin]

I've been contributing for less than that and seen porn a few times. Anecdotes are meaningless.

Interns?

[Githaron]

From the summary:

And this content is some of the website's most-accessed.

Because I have never run across porn there, I didn't even realize Wikipedia had a porn problem. That said, if pornographic content is really the most accessed content on Wikipedia, why not get a few paid/unpaid interns to review the top N accessed images on Wikipedia. I am sure there are people who would like to be paid to look at porn.

Re:Links?

[Sulphur]

Suppose someone wrote a filter for porn; would his filter be deemed to have accessed the porn. As the alarm went off poooorn, the cops came in.

I don't get it

[Pirulo]

I never seen it [on wikipedia]
I just tried and the three first intents got me to legit and informative content about what porn is, but not porn graphic content.

What Should We Do About Wikipedia's Porn Problem?

[J'raxis]

What should we do about Wikipedia's porn problem? Recognize that there is no "problem"---that this is no more a "problem" than any other content on Wikipedia that some people don't like---and move on to something that's actually important?

Porn is a red herring...

[fsmunoz]

extremely gross porn

I remember voting against a filter some time ago. One of the reasons was that "extremely gross porn" is not something consensual. A picture of a naked women having a baby, is it "gross porn"? Many would actively deem it so. Which is why this whole thing sounds to much like a first step towards self-censorship in the name of cultural relativism. Who will define what is porn and what is relevant?

Mind you, this different approach is valid between Europeans and North-Americans, let alone when talking about... others. Why not also consider additional content as "extremely gross"? Once it is done for "porn", whatever that means, the door is opened for everything else.

My position is not that porn should be in wikipedia. But images that are relevant to an article should be maintained if there is an agreement that they add value to it. Porn is but a red herring used to get the foot in the door.

Re:Porn is a red herring...

[silas_moeckel]

Nazi material is questionable? Besides the German desire to rid any reference and make it illegal to it why and to who is it objectionable it happened they were a world power that helped shape a huge amount of the current world conflict some 70 years later with no end in sight.

I find it idiotic to try and censor something that shaped the world as much as they did. The only way to prevent it from happening again is to learn from it. Hitler offered simple answers to complex social issues then used fear to spiral into a police state that committed horrendous atrocities primarily on minority groups.

Re:Porn is a red herring...

[flimflammer]

Why in gods name is Nazi material "questionable" anywhere outside of Germany?

Re:Porn is a red herring...

[ewok85]

My position is not that porn should be in wikipedia. But images that are relevant to an article should be maintained if there is an agreement that they add value to it. Porn is but a red herring used to get the foot in the door.

This should be the only position. A picture of a penis or a video of ejaculation on the appropriate page is completely justified, and should not be removed.

I'd probably support something like a page 'tag' - some way of marking a page as having material which may be found offensive so wikipedia can easily be filtered by those who so desire it.

Slippery slope

[rhysweatherley]

Porn problem? What about Wikipedia's bomb problem? Enough information about chemistry and physics to build your own homemade bomb. Depending upon your budget, everything from firecrackers and pipe bombs to nuclear weapons. What about Wikipedia's computer security problem? Blow by blow descriptions of common computer vulnerabilities and how they can be exploited.

And so on.

We've been down this road before with the debates over the Anarchist's Cookbook and hacking manuals. Banning, or labelling, or whatever serves no purpose except to enable government censors to make up excuses to block other information. And look - you gave them a nice little filtering system to help them do exactly that!

Of course Wikipedia needs to tread softly - they are the repository of the world's knowledge and anything that reduces access to knowledge is against its charter. Make the descriptions of various porn acts more clinical and less explicit, perhaps. But that won't stop the "think of the children!" crowd.

Minor issue.

[MaWeiTao]

For years I've noticed that any article even remotely associated with anything sexual gets loaded up with photographs. Search topics in many other area for which you'd expect photos and illustrations and you're luck to get anything. I don't have any inherent problem with an explicit photo if it's relevant and constructive. The problem is that a lot of the stuff on there is pointless and gratuitous. It's people thinking they're taking a stand for free speech or some asshole getting some kicks.

And it isn't just that... It's the absurd granularity of these articles. There will be legitimate articles flagged for review as irrelevant or redundant but then you've got article after article on every little sexual quirk, stuff that could be lumped under a single parent article.

I mean, at the end of the day, it's not all that surprising people expend so much energy on this stuff. And the fact is that I've never stumbled onto it without specifically seeking it out. At that point only a fool wouldn't just go to a proper porn site. So at the end of the day it's a bit of a tempest in a tea cup.

Re:links?

[tqk]

No, no, no -- just use a text browser, obviously...

Well, you're no fun. :-(

What kind of nutbar goes to Wikipedia for porn? Then again, maybe that'll teach a lesson to all those corporate nazis who're filtering their employees' web access. "Ha haaaa!"

Besides, porn? Why's anyone going nuts about porn? Discovery channel shows animals going at it all the time. Wait'll you see the one with the amorous elephant chasing after his intended. "Look at the size of that thing!"

prudes.

[Anonymous Coward]

prudes

Let alone, Extremely Gross Porn

[Shivetya]

Really?

What would constitute really gross as compared to mostly gross or just plain "damn, doesn't that hurt?"

The Ultimate Filter...

[JenovaSynthesis]

Parental involvement... the ultimate filter of internet content. Because if little Billy or Sally were using Wikipedia for their reports on Dinosaurs and the Great Depression, one highly doubts porn would be in there.

What porn?

[Animats]

What porn? I have over 10,000 edits on Wikipedia and don't recall seeing any porn. Wikipedia has bios of porn stars and links to their work, but they rarely host actual porn content. It has to be both notable and freely licensed to get into Wikipedia. Commercial porn doesn't qualify.

Is the problem here some religious group with a modesty fetish, or what?

If you want porn, search videos with Google or Bing and you'll find whatever you're looking for.

Re:What porn?

[DeadCatX2]

Nah, searching Google/Bing will land you in tons of malware. youporn and redtube are much better in that regard. Like with real-life sex, you're much less likely to get a virus if you only have a few sex partners.

The same thing we do with the internet's porn.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Nothing
If it bothers you that much, install local filters.
Granted, if your search leads you to porn, I'm pretty certain it's because it's what you meant to find.s

Porn? Where?

[PPH]

I've not seen it on Wikipedia. I have seen somewhat descriptive text on certain sexual topics. But none of it could be considered prurient or titillating. It could more accurately be described as clinical. It is possible to find some actual porn by following links (clearly labeled) to external sites. But so what? If you don't like those external sites, filter them.

If you expect the entire world to police themselves to standards you want for your kiddies, perhaps you need better parenting skills.

Re:porn? where?

[lilburne]

Then you've not been using the site properly. The issue isn't so much that there is porn on wikipedia, but that it flashes across your screen when you least expect it. It is getting to the point where you cannot search for any media file without some pornographic image being included in the first few results.

Re:porn? where?

[Joe Decker]

Take a deep breath, and point at a specific file, since you pointed at several. And also--this is a question of what shows up in the encyclopedia. You're going around to the back of the image hosting, but not every image in that image host is actually used in an encyclopedia article. Go ahead and tell me where one of those images is used in the encyclopedia, and then perhaps we can begin to have a discussion.

Who said its a problem?

[nurb432]

Its just what it is..

Browser filters, not site filters

[MobyDisk]

There is an easy reliable technological solution to this that has been around for 10 years, but no one uses it. There is a W3C standard for labeling pages as containing porn, violence, etc. Internet Explorer had support for blocking pages based on this as far back as IE5. But no one put the meta tags in and so the filters never worked. All Wikipedia should do is have contributors properly label the media, and allow the browsers to handle it based on the user's preferences.

The whole thing is a troll

[miltonw]

Got kids?
Got Internet?
Do what you should do to protect your kids online.
Don't blame Wikipedia, Google or whoever if you fail as a parent.

Re:The whole thing is a troll

[miltonw]

LOL! Oh, yeah! An age-18 "wall"! Ooooh! You have to click an "I am over 18" button. Yeah, children under 18 will never click that button. Yeah, let's all give thanks there is a "wall" there!!! Now our children are "protected" and we don't have to do anything as parents.

Pictures that describe pornography are porn?

[arthurh3535]

Or informational? Some of the amount of videos and pictures probably are excessive, but all in all it is informational and explains what these things are. It is not hundreds of pages/pictures of busty white girls topless on beaches.

I'd suggest trimming back (just because its excessive) but the fact that it is merely informative about something you feel uncomfortable with does not make it 'porn'.

Re:Pictures that describe pornography are porn?

[Zo0ok]

Problem is, it is NOT informative. Follow the links from picture searches above. Most of the pictures are just bad, pointless and vulgar. As people are quick to point out, it is arguably not even porn. I think anyone who really cares about the quality of Wikipedia and the creative commons stuff, should worry about these pictures as much as those people who are overly sensitive to nudity do.

Filter Gross Gross

[Anonymous Coward]

The other day I was looking up gross porn on Wikipedia, and I saw a picture of 145. Talk about a gross gross! Gross!

Was the double entendre intentional? :-)

[Dogtanian]

I can report that I very rarely come across porn of any description.

Sensible move- that generally causes the pages to stick together.

Re:links?

[optimism]

So...which, if any, of those references will take you to a graphic image?

It seems to me, the editors have done a pretty good job of minimizing exposure.

Re:links?

[rs79]

What happened to the picture? There used to be a picture,,, it was the best page ever for throwing a link at somebody and telling them to look it up in Wikipedia.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do anti-porn crusaders spend so much time searching for porn, only to be offended when they find that which they seek. I don't run into random porn very often. I don't see what the issue is.

A better question:

[PyroMosh]

What should we do about Slashdot's Larry Sanger problem?

In 2012, someone submitted an article to Slashdot whining of an imagined problem on the website Wikipedia. Citing the 'controversial content', he whined about the lack of a filter even weaker than Google's SafeSearch.

Since then, after growing calls to "show us the porn" by some Slashdot users, some users have made it clear that they do not expect this to be able to filter Larry Sanger. Nevertheless, Slashdot continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross whining and other complaining that most users don't want clogging up the front page. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. Nevertheless, Sanger remain one of Slashdot's most self-righteous users. Slashdot founder CmdrTaco (blessings and peace be upon him) has recently reiterated his support for a Larry Sanger filter, but no work is being done on it, and the editors have not yet issued any statement about whether they intend to work on it.

Re:A better question:

[PyroMosh]

This is the first I'd heard of him. I had no idea he was a well known figure when I posted this.

Since then, I've read some of the comments here about his background and followed some links and poked around his site. He just strikes me as a whiny control freak. The world has to be his way, and if not, he'll cry about it.

That's not so bad in and of itself. I like activism. I support it. But he the fights he picks are... trivial to say the least.

That some kid somewhere might learn what (and where) a clitoris is is kind of the least of my worries. But to him, the world might end.

Quit with the puritanical mindset

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, this is only a problem in the eyes of the beholder.

If children want to see porn on the web, all they need to do is
defeat the "safe search" option on Google and they will see porn.

Porn is just a bunch of pixels. If you don't want to see it close that web page. End of problem.

The tiny little minds of those who worry about things like this
are the real problem. All your children have either a penis or a vagina, and
sooner or later they are going to put that equipment to use JUST LIKE YOU DID.
This is part of human anatomy and there is no inherent evil about it.

Quit being an idiot and worry about something that matters. Like a Mormon possibly
becoming president of the US. If you want something to worry about THIS is worthy
of worry.

Re:One Word...

[paiute]

Miracle.

Well, just remember this

[SmallFurryCreature]

Check for yourself the number of teenage pregnancies in Holland vs the US. And then consider this, Holland's score would be even better if it wasn't for immigrants from cultures just as repressed as America's heartland.

Oh and look up rape figures too. Gosh... AGAIN! The more liberal a society is on sex, the less harmful side effects sex has on its population. How odd!

Excellent calibration image. (was: Re:links)

[rs79]

"http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sexual_intercourse_with_vaginal_lubricative_fluid.jpg"

is the best laptop lcd brightness calibration image I've ever seen. It's a pig working on a bunch of things and wondering "are these gonna be too bright for the mac guys or too dark for the PC guys" and most images you can't tell if they're a bit off or not if the screen is tilted wrong and god help you.

But if you can see this properly then you can adjust the brightness pretty accurately. Thanks!

Re:Excellent calibration image. (was: Re:links)

[rubycodez]

to be pornographic you'd need to see more of the woman; that photo is more clinical than anything else. I wouldn't be jerking off to dozens of pictures like that, maybe someone would

Re:Excellent calibration image. (was: Re:links)

[remadeus]

Quite funny your post ;) NFSW lcd_calibration 4 adults http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sexual_intercourse_with_vaginal_lubricative_fluid.jpg

Just art and medical content

[reve_etrange]

I think all the "porn" they are complaining about is really just historically relevant artwork and medical images which most certainly belong in an encyclopedia.

Do these people bitch constantly about National Geographic, too?

Re:Just art and medical content

[Zorque]

That's definitely not the case. Among stuff like shock images being uploaded by vandals, the WikiMedia commons has a growing problem of people taking pictures of their genitals for use on pages having anything to do with sexuality (or not!). I'd argue that an encyclopedia doesn't need any graphic videos of people ejaculating but that doesn't stop exhibitionists from adding them all the time.

Examples from Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

File searches on Wikipedia:
Toothbrush: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=toothbrush&fulltext=Search
Human female: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=100&redirs=0&profile=images&search=human+female
Human male: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=human+male&fulltext=Search
Jumping ball: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=jumping+ball&fulltext=Search

Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Free_Ride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-throating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_torture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture_(sexual_practice)

Re:Examples from Wikipedia

[Phoghat]

Which only proves YOU know what to look for

Re:Examples from Wikipedia

[Joce640k]

...and don't search for 'ejaculation'.

Re:Examples from Wikipedia

[Andreas Kolbe]

Here is a YouTube video that explains this in some more detail:

"Does Wikipedia have a porn problem? Dad investigates."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4Z9qunAc4

Holy Streisand Effect Batman

[McDrewbs]

Let me just open my very carefully hidden notepad file (it's in a .jpg of a giant ice "dong") and add Wikipedia to my already long list of free porn sites.
Toodle-oo /dot, I have some good ole fapping to do.

NSFW: 1

[VortexCortex]

Since the DNT: 1 shit is so fuckin' popular, why the hell don't we just send a bitchin' new HTTP Response header to indicate to these sons of bitches when the gods damned content may contain pussies, dicks, assholes, and other material you wouldn't want to be caught wanking over at work?

Please...

[Hamsterdan]

Last week at my local library, some kids were checking Kama Sutra books. When I was a kid, we would play with the TV fine tuning just to get a glimpse of adult encrypted channels.

Besides, if it wasn't for sex, the human race would have become extinct aeons ago...

Re:Please...

[rueger]

When I was a kid, we would play with the TV fine tuning just to get a glimpse of adult encrypted channels.

Ah. The age of awakening for many a Canadian boy was when they realized that the French TV channels had tits and nudity and sex - something the English channels wouldn't touch.

Well, in the days before CityTV.

Re:Please...

[Hamsterdan]

Where I grew up, the big bad *evil* big cableco hadn't bought them out yet. We couldn't get Videotron, we had to settle with Telecable des Milles Iles. They didn't have that fancy Videoway *interactive* terminal, I remember being pissed off because my friends in Montreal could play Burgertime on their STB and I was was stuck using a Jerrold piano-like channel-switcher. But you're right, French-Canadian TV had way more T&A back then...

Wikipedia for Pron?

[LifesABeach]

Ya, right. Just like looking at a National Geographic, only more boring.

Maybe the owner of Wikipedia has discovered business model that will generate funds. He can call it, "Wikipron?" It sounds like a fetish itself.

Wikipornia

[rs79]

I put together a porn website out of material on Wikipedia. Sort of. I did stick everything I could find on one page with thumnails. NSFW, duh.

I think you'd be hard pressed to call most of this "porn". There does seem to be more male dangly bits than anything else, by far, and I suspect this is is the source of republican *cough*closeted*cough* objection in the first place.

http://rs79.vrx.net/interests/computers/net/wikiporn/

(post additions here if you feel like it, I'll check)

WHAT porn problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I know, from several years of active editing, that I don't find it if I'm not looking for it. I use wikipedia daily (including using "random article" to see look for things that need TLC) and havent stumbled across anything of the sort.

Second, is it even pornography? In the sense of designed to secually arouse. Just because you are aroused by a urology textbook or National Geographic pictures of African pygmies or the Sears catalogue children's clothing section doesn't make those things pornographic. Most people would consider them informative.

And all of the images I've seen people link to as examples seem quite tame given the subject matter they're illustrating. Given that an article on the subject exists, they're quite appropriate.

I'm expect if someone was willing to go to the trouble of creating an animated "cartoon" form of the masturbation technique GIFs, editors would replace them, because line drawings are often clearer. But as long as nobody has stepped up, they're using the best illustrations they have.

And yes, I'm sure that the images are viewed rather a lot, just like the NatGeo articles on topless pygmies. So what?

Re:This is why Brittanica is better.

[Khyber]

Most people's minds are confined to much, much smaller definitions. Take a look around you. Nobody regularly reads one, this is one reason people know next to nothing.

"gee, I wish they would have censored that"

[aepervius]

two girl 1 cup, goatsee.


I really really really wish they could have censored that shortly before me seeing it. Actually I wish I could actively censor the rest of memory of that from my brain.


Just kidding ;). Censorship is bad, but we recognize in most country that children & teenager should not have access to porn, so you can't go with an age lower than 18 and buy "big tits-spanking magazine" or whatever. Naturally that means, *cough*wedidstealitfromourfamilyadultsin2ndor3rdgrade*cough*.

The things is why not use the solution of porn site ? If one stmble onto a page with porn , put an itnermediate java/html page with a warning message and OK/Cancel. Cancel just make you go to wiki homepage and OK forward you to the correct page. No need of censorship.

Your kid's still going to beat off

[doston]

And do you really want them looking at second rate porn, whether homo, hetero, bi or tranny? Kids need an education and do you really want to be the one to teach them? I learned how to beat off from porn, thank God. I certainly wouldn't want a lesson from a family member or dear friend. What if your kid is actually a huge tranny and needs to learn how to cross dress? Wouldn't you rather Wikipedia show him how to was his bikini line? Think of Wikipedia as that parent you were too repressed to be. Let Wikipedia or Youtube teach your daughter to lick the alphabet on her girlfriend's birthday. She's going to do it in college anyway.

Re:links?

[tinkerton]

Wait'll you see the one with the amorous elephant chasing after his intended. "Look at the size of that thing!"

Not that thing! The other thing!

Don't let religious people have a say here

[G3ckoG33k]

Don't let religious people have a say here

Let Academic reasons be the golden standard in porn. Otherwise someone will say Shiva has a bigger dick than Yahve and that that is an issue or that Thor's pubic hair is not black like Jesus' is racist.

Keep out the priesthood per se when discussing porn. Let them contemplate elsewhere and discuss the matter porn using academic terms.

Re:Don't let religious people have a say here

[G3ckoG33k]

I'm not sure if there is enough "protection" in Flickr, YouTube or Google. I guess these protections are quite easily overridden.

In articles which cover aspects of porn I can't think of why it shouldn't contain the subject matter.

Both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck are well written, with an academic aspect.

So is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt, the vulgarism for women's genitals. But, the vulgarism "cock" for men's genitals, the mighty penis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock is absent as a distinct subject matter. Actually I think the linguistic aspects of it is interesting per se, as a vulgarism or otherwise.

Should we allow the words thigh, foot, or anus? What makes porn porn? I don't know, but I typically recognize it as such if I see it.

Re:Don't let religious people have a say here

[G3ckoG33k]

In a way I get what you mean. No, I don't think those searches were what the people searching for "tooth brush" were after.

Moreover, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbating_with_a_toothbrush.jpg one can read "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)" which makes it even more unexpected the search engine finds it.

However, someone searching for "masturbation" may well find it relevant.

So, it seems to be more of an issue of the search engine searching full texts and some form of moderation. And, the moderation seems to be working. That page also has the text:

"This media file has been nominated for deletion since 25 April 2012. To discuss it, please visit the nomination page. Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed."

So, I think the system is working and see no immediate need to change.

But, I think as there are policies for living persons one could also have it for offensive ones, like those two examples. Still, I am not entirely convinced...

Re:Don't let religious people have a say here

[Andreas Kolbe]

The toothbrush image has been nominated for deletion several times, and has been kept each time. People (including the director of Wikimedia UK) have tried to rename it, so it wouldn't come up like this, and the renaming has been undone by administrators. The image was used in English Wikipedia, in the article "pervertible". That article has now been deleted. However, this use (which began during the most recent deletion request) enables people to say that the image has "potential educational use because it was used in Wikipedia". Anything with "potential educational use", or that has ever been inserted in a Wikipedia article, will not be deleted.

The thread heading is bone-headed by the way. I for one am not a religious person.

Re:Don't let religious people have a say here

[G3ckoG33k]

"The thread heading is bone-headed by the way."

Agreed... I chose it to get attention to the argument. Some would call it being an "attention whore", which, by the way, is an entry at http://www.urbandictionary.com/, but not in http://www.wikipedia.org./ ;)

Still, the abuse here is fairly innocent. It is just a disgusting picture of someone have a toothbrush next to the genitals or something along those lines. People won't get seriously harmed in that. What is a worse abuse I guess are those subtle astroturfing changes which have political motifs, or, the pathetic self-aggrandization uses of the term "prominent family".

What about World Book?

[mushroom blue]

I remember looking up "Reproduction" in my school library's Encyclopedia back in fourth grade, and seeing fairly graphic pictures and content. "Sex" was another good one. Eventually, we looked up "Vulva" and "Breasts". 'Twas a good time had by all the kids hovering over the World Book.

I bet you Larry Sanger had a similar experience when he was younger.

Now that I'm a parent, who am I to deny my children the same pleasure of discovery? It seems like this is the one area where everyone is afraid that being informed will somehow make all these children shoot up a school or something. They aren't going to just magically stumble upon "Dutch Pancake (sex act)" or whatever; they're going to be directly searching for the term after one of their friends tells them about it. More than likely, it'll make having "the talk" a lot easier later on if they're already educated; you'll be largely discussing responsibility, rather than technical questions.

Bullshit

[allo]

Wikipedia does not host porn, only some nude pictures. no normal person would have any problem with them, if it wasn't for some prude society.

Re:links?

[allo]

implies, there is no such thing as text-porn

It can, but we don't want it to

[Rix]

I'm sorry if that gets your prudish panties all twisted in a knot. Wait, no, it's the other thing. I'm not sorry.

We judge censorship to be unsuitable

[Rix]

If you want to do it yourself, that's your business, but keep it off Wikipedia.

If this were ever implemented you know very well that all sorts of entities would use it to block access to Wiki articles to consenting adults.

Re:We judge censorship to be unsuitable

[quax]

Obviously that'll only affect Wiki articles with gratuitous images and/or multimedia content. In which case that'll be exactly the way it should be used.

Re:We judge censorship to be unsuitable

[Rix]

That you would suggest it should is why it should be made technically impossible for you to do so.

Re:We judge censorship to be unsuitable

[quax]

As there is a demand for this I am quite certain a 3rd party solution will eventually be provided. It will just be outside the control of Wikipedia.

The obvious thing is to outcompete them

[David Gerard]

Do the obvious: beat them at their own game! A superior vision, with an educated, thoughtful and gentle guiding hand, will surely win out.

No, it can't

[Rix]

Really, were you never a teenager? It has never before in history been easier to get porn. They're going to see it, whether you like it or not.

Re:A counterpoint

[cheekyjohnson]

The link below could argue yes

And some would argue that video games turn people into murderers. Not only do most of these appear to be FUD, they also appear to assume that correlation is causation. Even if that's what did happen, there is absolutely no evidence that that happens often at all. I highly suspect that most people (even children) won't go out and murder or rape people simply because they played a video game or watched a video.

On top of that I think some people are reported to be getting porn addiction in which to get their highs they have to be constantly stimulated by more extreme acts.

Yeah, just like constantly stuffing your face with food can be unhealthy, so can sitting around watching porn all day. Or playing video games. Etcetera, etcetera. It really depends on how you define "unhealthy," though.

I suspect your whole attitude against women and other people in society can be warped and your inter personal relationships will not be normal.

Unless you have some evidence, I really don't care what you suspect. Anecdotally, I've played countless violent video games (even as a child) and I'm strictly against violence.

I do not think that video games makes murderers but it can influence people especially with who have 'issues'

Given the decreasing crime rates and the number of people who play video games, I highly doubt that if such people exist, they're very large in number.

Reclusive / personality disorders / whole lives sitting n front of computers

I was not aware that being an introvert meant that you're a murderer/rapist.

That same point of reality vs fantasy is also a good way to think of why young people should not be exposed to pornography until their minds or social skills can handle it.

If what you said is at all true for even a minuscule portion of the population, I suspect it's not young people we need to worry about, but those small number of individuals with those issues. Banning it for all young people is just pointless.

Again, anecdotally, I've seen zero evidence that exposure to pornography will cause you to do any such thing. And I'm not about to change my mind simply because someone linked to a news story (not even a study) that seems to assume that correlation is causation.

In fact, young people will probably discover pornography whether the parents want them to or not. I'd say it's far better to tell them about the realities of relationships (if they are one of the few individuals who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality) than to keep them in a bubble.

Neutrality

[Andreas Kolbe]

Neutrality means reflecting real-world views in accurate proportions, rather than adopting a fringe position. Wikipedia is the only mainstream site that does not have an adult filter. It pinches thousands of private sexual images from Flickr, where they are behind an age-18 wall, and puts them in public view on Wikimedia sites, without even asking Flickr account holders for their consent: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ATasting_a_condom.jpg&diff=67108318&oldid=66957446

Wikimedia provides unfiltered access to a bestiality video in response to a harmless search term like "devoirs" (homework) or "vacances" (holidays).

The first search result when entering toothbrush as a search term shows a woman masturbating with one: http://tch995319.tch.www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating

Wikimedia hosts sexually explicit material without any of the contributors adding and managing this material on Wikimedia sites having the legally required records for 18 USC 2257 compliance. Hundreds of uploads are just pure exhibitionism of Wikimedia contributors taking videos and photos of their dicks, or of themselves masturbating in their bathrooms.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbation.gif

How is that jerky (pun intended) video realistically useful for an educational purpose?

See the images listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BADIMAGES

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems for random image searches on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons bringing up adult material

See http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/04/11/wikimedia-commons-pornography-concerns-just-right-wing-prudery/

Wikipedia has its own comment on this subject

[PJ6]

I never had a theory of why right-wing / conservative nutjobs always get so angry when anyone suggests that there's nothing wrong with human sexuality until I came across this article on Wikipedia.

Re:Links?

[Joe Decker]

"random media searches run on Wikipedia,"

Right, as opposed to regular searches, which is what the vast majority of users on the encyclopedia are going to even know how to do.

there is no such problem.

[steve.cri]

Wikipedia does not "host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn". Sanger is a liar and a tool for censorship and comservative hysteria.

Re:there is no such problem.

[steve.cri]

It also depends on your definition of "porn". For me, "porn" is visual material produced and distributed with the intent of getting people aroused. The stuff in an encyclopedia is documentation, not porn. If Sanger held his ridiculous definition to printed encyclopedia, he would probably have to denounce them to the FBI, too, on the grounds that there may be some material in them some people could probably wank off to. He did not, of course, because his intent is not to protect anyone from "porn", but his intent is to harm Wikipedia by running a gross propaganda campaign and by abusing the legal system to damage the project. Just to keep in line with Sanger's train of thought, one could also wonder about this man's own sexual preferences, considering all the hours he obviously spent digging out the last peace of "porn" from Wikimedia sites, with a determination to find "gross" material probably surpassing that of 99% of all Wikipedia users. The more I think about it, the more I am beginning to suspect that he might get some kind of kick out of this meticulous research. Now normally I do not care what gets random people aroused, it is definitely none of my business. However, with a public conduct like Sanger, throwing around accusations and denouncing honest people as criminal perverts, his personal motivations should not be beyond scrutiny.

Re:links?

[Samantha Wright]

There aren't any samples in the "ASCII porn" article on Wikipedia, though.

Re:links?

[allo]

but maybe some erotic texts.

(following up my own comment)

[fritsd]

I'm actually sorry about my parent comment, it was too much flame-bait, and didn't add constructively to the discussion.
You said:

Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia.

That comment shocked me, to be honest. But can you please inform us in which areas of which country this happened? Was it a girls school in Afghanistan?

Cultural joke

[fritsd]

Sex toys in windows, more of a gray area. I'd rather not see them but that's just my opinion.

Did you go Christmas shopping in Amsterdam? :-)

The following sketch was from a 1980s Dutch humor show, aimed at a general audience, nothing shocking, so let's label it "NSFW" nowadays:
(NSFW, Dutch, notveryfunny) sketch from André van Duin & Corrie van Gorp Christmas Show: "that's why they haven't got wicks!"

New era knowledge?

[gonzalezea]

if the want to avoid some uncomfortable content to some people/cultures maybe they'd start by removing Tiananmen Square protests, Holocaust or Vietnam War articles. Heading to an Obscurantism era era?

fuck porn

[Tom]

If I had kids, there would be a lot of stuff I'd be more worried about than porn. There is violence and other graphic images on the Internet that I find a lot more disgusting than all but the most extreme porn. And that will almost certainly have a much worse effect on children than watching someone naked doing strange stuff they don't understand.

But then again, that's America for you, a culture where half the population believes in creationism and shooting someone's brains out on afternoon TV is fine while a quarter-second glance at half of a breast nipple is a national scandal.

There's worse than porn on the Internet, and if you want to play the "for the chiiiiildren" card, then I'd like to see some evidence that porn actual does any damage to children first. You assumptions and gut feelings, see creationism, are not reliable and not evidence.

In the Eye of the Beholder?

[YaddaMinski]

I have never come across porn on Wikimedia. Yes, you can look up porn stars with urls and see positions, but that is porn? German porn???

Wikipedia Volunteer

[Alsee]

What Should We Do About Wikipedia's Porn Problem?

...this content is some of the website's most-accessed.

I didn't realize Wikipedia had a porn problem, but if the demand really is that high I guess I could volunteer to help add more.

-

Another approach

[mnot]

Just curious... why doesn't wikipedia create a new hostname (e.g., "safe.wikipedia.org"), and then create a process (it's good at that, right?) for promoting content into it?

Then, schools / parents / etc. could blacklist the "main" site as much as they like, and whitelist the "safe" one, WITHOUT altering the main site at all?

Then

[DanielBMS]

Then get the kids to remove the erotic images.