What Should We Do About Wikipedia's Porn Problem? 544
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.)
porn? where? (Score:2, Informative)
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:Not a problem (Score:4, Informative)
Wow didnt know that Jesus loved anal sex with women...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anal_Intercourse_Artwork.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder why Larry Sanger could possibly have an interest [citizendium.org] in making WP look problematic.
links (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikimedia.org]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:GIF_videos_of_male_masturbation&oldid=67780152 [wikimedia.org]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sexual_intercourse_with_vaginal_lubricative_fluid.jpg [wikimedia.org]
etc etc
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Informative)
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:So? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Well, just remember this (Score:4, Informative)
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!
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Examples from Wikipedia (Score:5, Informative)
Toothbrush: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=toothbrush&fulltext=Search [wikipedia.org]
Human female: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=100&redirs=0&profile=images&search=human+female [wikipedia.org]
Human male: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=human+male&fulltext=Search [wikipedia.org]
Jumping ball: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=jumping+ball&fulltext=Search [wikipedia.org]
Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Free_Ride [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-throating [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_torture [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture_(sexual_practice) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Informative)
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. [wikiversity.org]
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Good point. I just gave the first link I found.
Here [springerlink.com] are [sagepub.com] three [wiley.com] 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 [makelovenotporn.com].
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Informative)
Actually pretty interesting what you say there :
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 [nieuwsblad.be] ); 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 [www.gva.be] ), 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...