Sexuality sensitivity as an argument for banning, blocking or not using
Wikipedia is utter garbage.

Schools teach this from pre-primary onwards ok at pre-primary its just the
distinction between being a boy and a girl by grade 5 the class rooms are
discussing periods, sex, drugs the whole gamete of unmentionable topics.

As a parent I'd rather my children read and learn from neutral information
in an informed manor, within class room environment with teacher and peers
is a good external(non-home) environment. The children learn that saying no
is ok, they learn that its their decision that matter when it comes to them,
likewise to respect the choices of other people. They learn about being
safe, the learn of the dangers and consequences of the decisions they take.

Wikipedia has images of the human body these are realistic images rather
than un-natural representation that require surgery or self abuse to attain,
it also has images of the damage poor choices can result in. Its not perfect
nor is it comprehensive in some areas its limited but the major topics are
well covered they are heavily patrolled and problems rarely last more then a
minute or two. As a group we need to admit to the limitations and work to
improve them but we should also be high lighting the amount of positive
information, the way its neutrally presented and the fact that its not about
promoting unrealistic images of what's "normal".

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, schools have National Geographic, they have
copies of Britannica in their libraries, they have books specifically about
sex all with images that are comparable to what we have. We have depth, we
have currency, we are in the medium that children are most comfortable with.

We do cover every topic so yes they'll find articles about porn,
prostitution, drugs, along with death, religion, history, plants, wars,
buildings, places, people, events, maths, languages, cultures, politics,
medicine, space, ufos, literature, theatre, movies, games, tv shows, animals
and on, on...... because thats what Wikipedia is about. When you talk to a
teacher about Wikipedia talk about knowledge for its with knowledge that a
person grows, if they think that restricting knowledge maybe its better
point them to article on people like
Goebbles<>, Bin Laden  to
see what can be achieved by controlling the flow of
knowledge and the way its presented...

2008/12/9 Zero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I'm sorry to break it to you, but the problems with these points of
> view is that this isn't limited to just Wikipedia and such. Any kind
> of sensitive information, or new opinions, anywhere, will have some
> sort of backlash and outrage. It's an inherent part of society, and
> it's difficult, if not impossible to change the status quo without
> simply waiting for the next generation to take dominance. And even
> then the cycle will repeat. If you have an idea to tackle it, I'd be
> eternally grateful.
> In the end we'll just have to work around it.
> All I can suggest right now is, while informing them about Wikimedia's
> projects, we warn them that there are sensitive subjects, but it is
> not our aim to censor, and we write strictly in an informative,
> academic sense. If one sees something that's not written so, it's our
> job to fix that, and if there's a lasting problem, remind them that
> they can censor and filter things with their own software, at their
> own discretion.
> 2008/12/9 Orderinchaos78 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I really liked this post, it reflects my point of view. We're talking
> about
> > teenagers who probably know more about it than some of the people wishing
> to
> > censor it, for starters. And they see worse on TV every night - there's
> > serial killers, murders, drugs and sex even before 8:30 in many cases. To
> be
> > forewarned is to be forearmed, as the saying goes, and I think censoring
> > things "for the children" is a pretty outmoded approach that reflects a
> lack
> > of understanding of modern youth - especially if we're talking about a
> > factual resource with an NPOV approach.
> >
> > cheers
> > Andrew
> >
> > 2008/12/9 Andrew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> 2008/12/9 private musings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > My answer right now to the question 'should wikipedia be available in
> >> > schools' is 'no' - I'd be interested to hear yours.
> >> >
> >> > I think it'd be great to lead the way on a community level in figuring
> >> > out
> >> > how best to communicate this - you know - accentuating the positives,
> >> > communicating clearly the nature of the wiki beast etc.
> >> >
> >> > Stuff that I've done in this area goes back a little way - primarily
> in
> >> > 'project space' with;
> >> >
> >> >  and
> recently
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On a side note, I believe Commons has a bit of catch up to do in terms
> >> > of
> >> > policy and practice in dealing with images best described as 'edgy'
> and
> >> > uncharitably described as free porn, and whilst I'm happy to talk
> about
> >> > that
> >> > here, I guess the most 'on topic' matter in hand is how this (and
> indeed
> >> > recent press coverage) impact our outreach work, and what we might be
> >> > able
> >> > to do to best work with schools etc.
> >>
> >> You're resting your entire argument on the assumption that
> >> encyclopedic, earnest and frank discussion of sexuality is a weakness,
> >> and something to be ashamed of. I don't agree that children need to be
> >> "protected" from sexuality any more than they need to be "protected"
> >> from non-heterosexual influences. History, past and present, shows
> >> that those societies in which sexuality is discussed openly,
> >> earnestly, and honestly, have the lowest rates of sexually transmitted
> >> infection, teen pregnancy, and divorce. While many of the powers that
> >> be (parents and teachers, as well as the government of the day) are
> >> afraid of earnest discussion of sexuality, I don't see why we ought to
> >> indulge them.
> >>
> >> Even if you accept the idea that pornography is inherently damaging to
> >> society and to viewers (which is an entirely different, but related
> >> argument, and I can certainly see arguments on either side, regardless
> >> of my feelings on it), it does not necessarily follow that sexual
> >> content is also damaging to society. In your crusades against
> >> sexualised content, you have consistently denied or ignored the
> >> distinction between smut (that is, something that appeals purely to
> >> the prurient interest), and tasteful but relevant illustration (that
> >> is, something which would also appeal to curiosity or a more
> >> intellectual interest).
> >>
> >> The fact of the matter is that a basic understanding of human anatomy
> >> is essential to any well-rounded education, and I would far prefer
> >> that a child comes to this understanding through tasteful, but earnest
> >> images (including photographs), rather than a mishmash of unclear and
> >> over-complicated diagrams (made complicated to mask the sexual aspect
> >> of them), vague description, and personal experience that most of us
> >> have used to come to our current understanding of the anatomy of both
> >> genders.
> >>
> >> I therefore view your, and other's attempts to suppress representation
> >> of sexuality for fear that it is 'inappropriate' for children (without
> >> any stipulation as to the reasons for this assertion) as misguided at
> >> best, and at worst willful denial of the education that children need
> >> to function correctly in society. Sexuality is a part of society - an
> >> integral part, as it happens, it governs much of our lives. This will
> >> remain the case despite the attempts to suppress it by you, the IWF
> >> and other organisations.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew Garrett
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Always here,
> Zero
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to