On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Thomas Larsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > As you probably know, the United Kingdom's Internet Watch Foundation > (IWF) recently blocked (and subsequently unblocked) several Wikipedia > articles on the basis that they contained what what was allegedly an > indecent picture of a naked pre-pubescent girl (a cover of the Virgin > Killer album). While the IWF's ban on these pages was badly > implemented and perhaps in itself inappropriate, there is a serious > issue at stake here—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and, since it is > reached by thousands if not millions of school students on a daily > basis, should it be carrying these kinds of pictures? > > I've heard two main arguments in favour of keeping the specific Virgin > Killer picture, and similar images, so far. The first position pivots > on the clause in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (which is > official Wikipedia policy) that states that "Wikipedia is not > censored"; the second is based on the argument that the picture has > not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be > included in Wikipedia. > > The argument from the standpoint that Wikipedia is not censored seems > to be easily refuted, at least to me. Wikipedia claims to be, first > and foremost, an _encyclopedia_; thus, some types of material are > appropriate for inclusion, and other types are not—high standards of > scholarship should be maintained throughout the project. The "not > censored" clause in Wikipedia policy, though, seems to be commonly > (mis?)understood to allow unregulated free expression and unrestricted > content on Wikipedia; it is my understanding, at least, that this is > not, or was not originally, the case. The clause that Wikipedia is not > censored appears to me to be a kind of disclaimer for readers: > "Wikipedia doesn't have any paid staff to check that content contained > in the encyclopedia is appropriate for younger readers; therefore, you > should know that you can find material that you may find objectionable > here." I believe that the clause was originally written with the > intent of giving readers fair warning about what they might run into, > not for justifying the inclusion of all types of material. Wikipedia > claims to be an encyclopedia; well, according to established standards > of traditional scholarship, this picture would not be displayed in any > "true" encyclopedia—at least, I don't see Encyclopædia Britannica > including it anytime soon, and Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger has > already stated that the image won't be appearing on Citizendium (see > http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/11/citizendium-safe-for-virgins/).
Britannica is not the correct comparison. Compare maybe http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Heavy-Metal-Daniel-Bukszpan/dp/0760742189 The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal or somesuch. Wikipedia is both a general and specialist encyclopaedia, servicinga wide variety of purposes. If we were just trying to duplicate EB with free licensing, we'd all be wasting out time (after all, there is a PD version - 1911). > The argument from the standpoint that the picture has not yet been > declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in > Wikipedia, seems even weaker than the previous one. It hinges on a > critical point—the assumption that if content is legal, Wikipedia can > and _should_ include it. This is incorrect, as I have stated and > justified above: Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and according > to this standard it should only include certain types of content. > Legality, therefore, can only define material that must be _excluded_; > it does not dictate what should be _included_. > > Some users have expressed worry over the precedent that might be set > if the picture was deleted or removed from the articles it appears > in—"Next," they say, "it'll be images of Muhammed." Well, I'm not > going to argue here for the inclusion or exclusion of images of > Muhammed; but I will say that, unlike images of Muhammed, the Virgin > Killer album cover image and other pictures like it are considered > indecent, obscene, taboo, and/or distasteful by _general people_ (as > opposed to radical religious fundamentalists, free speech advocates, > commercial stakeholders, et cetera) in practically all human cultures. > > Pictures like these can be described using words, and they do not have > to be shown in all of their gory detail—personally, I have not viewed > the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, yet I have learnt > of its general content through what has been said about it. Should > Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia and reaches millions of > people daily—many, if not _most_, of them school students—really be > distributing images such as the one that prompted the IWF ban? > > I hope that we can engage in polite, reasoned intellectual debate > rather than hinging on ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT bigotry. > > Cheers and best regards, > > —Thomas Larsen > Cheers Brian _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
