Talk:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content: Part Three

Re: Commons' growth

I believe that you are mistaken with your linear extrapolation of Commons' growth. Figures [1] suggest that the upload rate is growing more or less linear. This would mean a quadratic growth in amount of files, which seems to match the figure [2] quite well. So therefore, I think the future growth of Commons is even more extreme than you state. 46.114.67.167 18:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale versus retail

Part Three agonises over the question of how to reconcile the completeness of the archive with the sensibilities of the viewer, suggesting a contradiction in Wikimedia's core mission, questioning whether part of the project should be outside the WMF. But the contradiction is not unfamiliar: there is a different sensibility in the meat packing plant than there is at the meat counter in the supermarket. Industrial versus commercial, wholesale versus retail. Every industry on Earth needs to have a floor set aside where people can get work done without whining and hand-wringing, without people fighting each other, without worrying about whether the paint gets scratched. You have to set aside a place like that, an ethics like that, before you do anything else, because until you have a product, you don't worry how it's presented. But when you start to take your production facility for granted, then you can go back and talk about setting up a retail store where meat is served up on clean white shelves in shrink-wrapped packages and nobody mentions the guts and blood.

If WMF must pick one of the two missions, it must pick the original mission of production. And the second mission is indeed a difficult one, because it is different for every person. WMF could provide certain tools to facilitate that mission, but the choice of what to keep and what to block out must always be done at the level of the reader. I do believe this part can be done most effectively by third-party organizations serving up their notions of a "clean Wikipedia". I hope that we will agree in the end to maintain WP:NOTCENSORED as a pillar of the WMF, leaving the right to reuse and rework that content to all — even those who believe in censorship. Wnt 02:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think one could even argue that the individual projects are, themselves, the "store shelves", so to speak. In the Commons "plant", images are given their first bit of processing. Their quality is assessed, a label with the license they're under, what they're of, author, etc. is put on. And then they're placed into the appropriate "boxes", using the categorization system.

When an editor from Wikipedia, or Wikibooks, or what have you, needs one of those images, they're the one who decides what they'd like to "order", packages it up, and places it in context of writing about the subject of the photo. That's when the final, shiny product is on its shelf. Commons is that production plant for images, and it's awfully good at doing it. Let's leave them to it. No one's going to be forced to use every image there is on Commons, but why remove free images from it? Even if you can't use it, someone else might want it someday. Seraphimblade 13:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the analogy I was making, because Wikipedia articles are still a single universal source of content for all comers. While it's true that Commons supplies Wikipedia, I would characterize Wikipedia as the warehouse supply rack rather than the retail store. Wnt 06:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Libraries

I must say that, while a do appreciate the hard work and though that you put into this, I'm rather disappointed with the result. There's a lot to chew over, so just to take one topic for now. In your section "Children", you write:

"We note that in many North American communities, traditionally, the public library was seen as one of the “safest” places for a child, in terms of their exposure to wanted and unwanted material. However, as we learned from our conversations with librarians, the library ideal (if not always the policy in every individual library) is to restrict no material to children – the ideal is that there is one library, equally open to all users identically. The squaring of this particular intellectual circle (that libraries are considered safe for kids, even though they are relatively unrestricted in their access to their collections) is, we believe, because of the many positive programs that public libraries offer to children..."

• I would think that, if talking to a librarian (or anyone else) and discovering that their "ideal.. is to restrict no material to children", then an appropriate response would be to think "Well, this person obviously has nothing useful to contribute. Now how quickly can I cut short this interview so that I can go find someone to talk to to who isn't a complete idiot"? I find it concerning that you apparently didn't have this reaction.
• It is true that "traditionally, the public library was seen as one of the safest places for a child", and that most people still believe that. But these people are living in the last century. The circle is not squared an in fact the American public library is not a safe place for children, at all, and the "many positive programs" only mask that. I can personally attest to this, to my great sorrow.
• I'll tell you this much: children's librarians don't have an "ideal.. to restrict no material to children". You must have been talking to regular librarians. So why include your conversations with them in the section you labeled "Children"? They have no pedological training or affinity for children, and you would have better talked to jockeys or train engineers. Herostratus 05:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Aren't "regular librarians" exactly the ones who manage regular libraries and the access to their different sections? My local library for example has a reception/checking-in-and-out desk, a help/info desk, a few computers, and 3 main sections (children, adult, reference/business) which is probably quite typical. The larger library a couple of miles away also has a music section and music info desk, but the same basic organization of its resources and staff. Having lived here many years I haven't ever seen any of the staff restricting children from the adult section or scrutinizing the shelves or books that children visit if they go to the adult section. As for the second point, worth checking what kind of "safety" was being referenced (eg, if he means "safe exploration of their books and resources" rather than "safe from child molesters and the like") as the latter isn't the issue of this study. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that "Having lived here many years I haven't ever seen any of the staff restricting children from the adult section or scrutinizing the shelves or books that children visit if they go to the adult section" is true. I could say about my former town "Having lived here many years I have seen quite a few knife fights and muggings." In neither case does may a benign state be necessarily inferred.

By "safe", I mean "safe from picking up books off the shelves that contain details of problematic kinky sexual behavior totally inappropriate for a young person's stage of development and having the effect of tending to retard the development of a young person's growth toward becoming a loving and sexually healthy adult." Herostratus 20:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference between libraries and knife fights is that if a library has a policy on childrens use and section access you'd regularly see it in action when you visit, whereas knife fights and public safety are a sporadic incident that are easy to under or over estimate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I've taught full-time in a library school, & one of the things i discussed with my classes is how to deal with the difficult material. One of my examples was a children's book, recommended as suitable for beginning readers, with extremely disturbing situations for the protagonist, The response of the class was to buy it for a general children's collection, but not for a collection specifically targeting at that level. Another was how to deal with a request for the Protocols of the elders of zion in a public library. The students found one of several books containing the text along with a discussion. These are the standard answers, and all the students knew them. The local branch of my public library has a special set of shelves in a prominent location: Censored Books, with the intention both of showing most of them as innocuous, and providing convenient access to things likely to be asked for. The main branch young people's section has, besides the general sequence, special displays labelled for various age groups: each contains a range of what the people of that age are likely to be interested in. Some users go there first, some don't. A parent walking in with a young child has a choice of where to take them. Young children by themselves do not bother with books that are not what they are looking for.

When young people see material that is written down to them or avoid the controversial parts, they know it and reject it. If it's more explicitly sexual than they are ready for, they don't bother with it. I saw yesterday a film dealing with sexual violence of a political sort--I think a young teenager would have seen it as any other fiction. I as an adult knew the significance of what was being shown and had the intended emotional reaction. To a person below a certain level of maturity, bukkake is one of the many strange things adults do that they do not understand. Once they do understand sex a little better, they'll probably simply think it disgusting, as young adults (in my experience) seem to think of most of the odder sexual variants. I can not see how it would corrupt them. It tends to be the adults who are more bothered by this. DGG 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Children, exposure to sexuality, and harm

If there is any evidence that "details of problematic kinky sexual behavior" tends to retard children's emotional and sexual health, it has not been put forward. On the contrary, the peer reviewed secondary literature has held for over a decade that the availability of descriptions and images of ordinary, alternative, and even violent sexuality to children not only tends to reduce their victimization in sexual crimes committed by adults, but it also reduces the extent to which children commit sexual crimes against other children.[3][4][5]

Yes, it's counter-intuitive, but it isn't a controversial finding within the academic fields in which it has been studied. It does have vast implications for what harm actually is: If we want to reduce harm, we should concentrate on limiting materials which are known to actually cause harm, and we shouldn't try to limit materials which -- contrary to our well-intentioned gut feelings -- actually prevent it.

In other words, censoring all kinds of sexuality doesn't help kids, it hurts them, and therefore it should not be seriously considered. 208.54.5.79 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that "children" in this context can be anything up to 18 years old, is there evidence of this statement? I'm not aware of studies showing that exposure of 14 - 17 year olds (for example) to books containing information on "problematic kinky sexual behavior" (which is itself an incredibly vague expression) has the effect of "tending to retard the development of a young person's growth toward becoming a loving and sexually healthy adult". Not speaking for other countries where different cultures may exist, but in Western cultures at least it seems a very large proportion of under 18's already have such exposure (via educational books, libraries, internet, friends etc) from a much younger age than 18, and that this was already the case for many years prior to the Internet. Is it being claimed these people had suffered as a result from a tendency to "retard development toward becoming loving and sexually healthy adults"? I'm no expert but I am fairly sure that this isn't a mainstream accepted finding within academic sociological research. It has the feel of being more a subjective lay-opinion. Can you clarify the source of this and whether it's just an opinion or if it's an actual research finding? FT2 09:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The opinion was stated in the previous enclosing section, which has since grown. People ought not to be too suprised, because e.g. it's been known for several decades that sex education in elementary school grades (of the traditional variety, not "abstenence only") sharply reduces teen pregnancies. When kids, even very young kids, know about sexuality and perversions, it makes it easier for them to talk about untoward advances with parents, teachers, and other authority figures, and it makes them more likely to sucessfully resist both advances and their own impulses. 208.54.5.79 10:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous section just seems to state it as a user opinion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting views... in Germany, there is usually no restriction for kids to visit the adults libraries, only they can't take those books home (which is only to keep those books available for their intended readers). But what is weird in your discussion is the word "safety" in "keeping some books away from children" where on the other hand knife fights and street shootings are normal. Kids practicing sex or reading about don't kill others at the same time, and fighters and killers don't go to the library... And 17yr olds may join the army, but would not be allowed soemthing harmless like Lady Chatterley... *lol*--Mideal 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The three citations you give are all by the same person, Milton Diamond, who is a biologist and not a psychologist, psychiatrist, pediatrician, or child development expert. And he's obviously a polemecist. And even then, the materials mention children only in passing; Diamond is concerned with adults. Not including child pornography, which isn't the issue here, there are only one truly relevant single sentences in the three citations you give: "It has been argued that there are more problems with censorship of sexual information and other erotic material from minors than there are advantages (Heins, 2001; Levine, 2002)". (However, it's not clear what kind of information and erotic material Heins and Levine are talking about.)

The only other possibly relevant sentence is" (speaking of Japan) "Most significantly, despite the wide increase in availability of pornography to children, not only was there a decrease in sex crimes with juveniles as victims but the number of juvenile offenders also decreased significantly", but I am not talking about juvenile offenses.

You'd have to do a lot better than that to convince any thinking person. Especially considering that there is raft of material refuting your view.

Regarding the rest... you are conflating terms, whether deliberately or through a lack of intellectual rigor. I mention children, you talk about 17-year-olds. I talk about sadomasochism, you say ""sex education in elementary school grades sharply reduces teen pregnancies". I don't think we are talking the same language.

Let me ask you this. Take a look for instance at the English Wikipedia article on Bukkake (it's here). If I understand you correctly, you are saying that these images should be available to all children of any age, and this is a good thing, is that correct? Just want to clarify. Herostratus 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who this is addressed to. For my part a rather specific claim was made and I've asked if there is credible and accepted sourcing and supporting material for it, not mere rhetoric or questions of opinion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a different between the image being "available to all children of any age" and being unrestricted by Wikipedia. Because children have parents; they use computers that may likely have free censorware provided by internet providers (for example in U.S. schools the censorware is required by w:CIPA); they might even listen when told to avoid such images on their own. The difference between parents and Wikipedia is that parents know their children, and probably know what they have already gotten access to. If there's an opinion to restrict the access to the image it's coming from the parents, not most Wikipedians, and only the parents know where their limits are. So in every way and sense, the question of whether the image is available to children is not our business.

We should also consider that if we attempt to hide some images from children browsing the site, we're really putting lipstick on a pig. Wikipedia is not a child safe site, with or without hiding images. Who knows where the external links and citations lead? Who watches three million talk pages to see if a child and a pedophile are arranging a meeting? Any attempt to soften the impact of controversial images risks giving a false sense of security. Now I do believe that children can handle adult content — if properly schooled in sex education and having a sensible set of mores, I think that even young children can read an article on bukkake without any "damage" whatsoever. And I do think that even young children can use Wikipedia safely, without endangering themselves or others via pedophiles, thieves, scammers, data-diggers, hackers, and the like, provided that they have a sense of "street smarts" and can feel ready and willing to consult adults whenever they encounter something outside their experience. But of the two, I think the second is much harder. Wnt 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As you point out, Dr. Diamond has been studying the availability of pornography -- including even graphic and violent depictions of rape -- in relation to sex crimes associated with both children as well as adults. Where is the "raft" of material refuting his findings? He has been able to garner approval from peer review panels of pertinent academic journals for multiple scholarly literature reviews spanning more than a decade. If there was any solid evidence to the contrary, as you suggest, it should be easy to find. I can find none. Studying articles which cite his, it's clear that his findings aren't even controversial. As for the article on bukkake, yes, I think it's very likely that a child exposed to it during self study or by peers will not be harmed and that it will likely have the effect of making such topics more easily approachable by the child when speaking to parents and other authority figures, and thereby reduce the risk of sexual victimization of the child. If there is indeed evidence to the contrary, let's see it. 71.198.176.22 04:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Herostratus. If a librarian allowed children to read pornography, then they can be sent to jail as that is against the law. All libraries have to take child safety classes where such is drilled into them, and any librarian promoting the above view is either lying about being a librarian or violating major librarian ethics and standards. Such are not credible. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. What made you think that? If a library has pornography as part of its collection, all patrons have access to it. The ALA's guidelines on Kids and Libraries specifies that libraries may not discriminate based on age. Their Library Bill of Rights affirms more positively that all patrons, including children and teens, have the right to choose for themselves what they wish to read, listen to, or view. "Librarians are not authorized to act as parents. But they are happy to provide suggestions and guidance to parents and youngsters at any time."

The Canadian Library Association has a similar policy on Intellectual Freedom, whereby children have access to library holdings equivalent to that of adults. "It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge... including those which [some] may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable... to all individuals and groups who need them."

To the extent that librarians limit what patrons can access, it happens in their selection practices: when they choose what books and other resources to buy. So a small elementary school library would not have anything that could be considered pornography, and (depending on the region) perhaps no anatomy books either. –SJ · talk | translate 10:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there sources for any of these assertions? I'm unable to find any laws which would jail librarians for allowing children to read pornography. Googling [library child safety class] yields things like this and this from the American Library Association which endorses "Ecouraging Values Over Filters." I think you are making things up, Ottava. 71.198.176.22 09:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It would fall under "corrupting a minor". A father in Wisconsin was charged with it for showing his own kids pornography, so a librarian can be penalized for doing it in a public place. No one under 18 means no one under 18, and if a librarian isn't enforcing it then the librarian wont be a librarian but a fired librarian. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Claptrap. There's an indescribably huge difference between "showing" and "allowing to be seen". Without evidence that courts would interpret a librarian's failure to police a child's reading selections with a father's imposition of pornography on his children, it's a logical leap that has no basis. LtPowers 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This distinction is critically important. If a librarian sat down next to a kid and started showing them sexually explicit images, one would hope that, in addition to being fired, they would be charged with a crime. On the other hand, allowing children to read whatever book they pick up off the shelf is no crime, nor should it be. Libraries are to be repositories of writings, including writings that many people would find shocking and distasteful. My local library carries Lolita, Mein Kampf, and Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for the same reason we have articles on them—not because we agree with what's expressed in them, but because they are notable works. It's not our job as editors to decide that we like or don't like a given thing (though of course we're certainly all welcome to have such an opinion), it's our job to neutrally and factually present information on it. The same is true of the librarian—their job is to provide access to the works in the library, not to decide what "should" or "shouldn't" be read by whom. Let's ask this—if a child did hear the term "anal sex" somewhere, and was curious as to its meaning, would you rather they visited the Wikipedia article on it (with or without an image), or any of the other sites that will pop up on a Google search for the term? I would venture a guess that most children, if they did visit the article, would probably find the subject either disgusting or very odd and move on to something else. There's a tremendous difference between "This information is here, and you can view it if you want" and "I'm going to pressure or force a specific kid to view this sex image." However, having informative, complete articles about sex is and should be part of our educational mission. In too many parts of the world, children (and even many adults) are given little to no access to information about sex, sexual health, etc. If they need a starting point to learn about those things, they could do an awful lot worse than visiting the Wikipedia articles. But we're not making anyone visit those articles. And honestly, for readers who know about sex—if you look up the article on anal sex, or bestiality, or any number of things, you're going to find an article about, well, exactly what it says on the tin. It's hard to claim "shock" at that point—and those who don't know what said practices are will be shocked by learning of the practice, not really by the article itself. Seraphimblade 14:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What an absurd argument: "if a child did hear the term "anal sex" somewhere, and was curious as to its meaning" So, if a child heard of "gang rape" we need videos of it? If a child heard of "bestiality" we need videos of it? If a child heard of "stalking and murder" we need videos of it? Just because a child can hear of something does not mean we need to provide them with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not even close. Neglect laws cover those who just lay things about for easy access. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Please give this paragraph a once-over. It is so full of comma's and other disclaimers for the many complexities that it's a little tough to read:

"And finally, children are not quite fully-autonomous citizens in legal terms, and where their rights and the rights of their parents or legal guardians coincide, diverge, are in harmony, or are not, is an extremely complex moral and legal question which we note we have not yet studied at any level of detail. We have accepted the “convention,” if you will, (which has legal force as well) that parents enjoy some rights over their child’s behaviour, and will, and do, exercise those rights, in varying degrees among different cultures and societies throughout the world." Ocaasi 11:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Bridging the gap

You fairly point out that many other countries or cultures view America (or America/Canada/Europe/Australia/Japan) as the "biased" and liberal ones. True, but it's not for nothing that Wikipedia was invented here, along with the internet. A culture of freedom has been an immense good for humanity, and we shouldn't merely equivocate between "the people who want freedom to predominate" and "the people who think we have a little too much freedom". Wikipedia has its roots, its lifeblood, in the first group, and while we should certainly make reasonable efforts to accommodate the second, I think we should avoid insinuating that our service is willing to compromise that core principle. In other words, even if the WMF approves facilitating user-side censorship, we shouldn't suggest that censorship in any form is being endorsed or that anything less than an unimpeachable commitment to openness to free thought and knowledge is being supported. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 11:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, and I agree with agreeing with it. --Alecmconroy 20:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with agreeing to agree about this. --Cybercobra 06:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this consensus about agreement. –SJ · talk | translate 09:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm...supportive of the support? Seraphimblade 15:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ridiculous. "openness to free thought and knowledge" would justify every non-notable, fringe view ever. It would also require us to host libel, defamation, and the rest. All of our policies are to ensure that we do not debase ourself by indulging in such anarchy. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just because you ridicule it doesn't make it ridiculous. The point is that if you want to exclude something, you need a compelling reason to do so. It's not enough to say that some people might be offended. It's not enough for it to be inconvenient to host. It's not even enough for there to be a potential for lawsuits. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 05:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments

I like your approach here ("children" is fairly well nuanced and suggests sensible attitudes). Unless someone else spots a problem I have little to add. Brief comments on this page:

1. You use the term "we" ("we think that...") a lot in discussion. I probably should have asked this before, but better late than never: Who is the word "we" primarily indicating when you have used it this way? - yourself? Yourself and 1-2 other collaborators in the study? WMF? Or...?
2. I like some of your observations on the practical issues related to children, for example highlighting the dichotomy of libraries as a place where children are free (and seen as safe to) to visit all sections but also as being fully open, and your view of one possible resolution of this tension via targeted education and programs.
3. I think you will meet people who will argue that libraries may be open but the books are not open or directly linked (as web pages and search engines cause the internet to be), and children may well not visit the adult sections which are well defined, publicly observed, and in specific areas. Although I agree with the comment in this section these are possible weaknesses some may see in the analogy that explain why online and offline libraries work differently.
4. Regarding the other two sections, no specific comment, they seem fine.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons Dual Mission

Some worthwhile thoughts here. The topic of tension between the two goals has been discussed in the period that i was an active member in that community, i think, in the commons pub several times, and always ended in the forced remarks that these two goals could live besides each other. Imho you did well to mention them and not to make any formal recommendation in this.

TeunSpaans 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons Breakthrough

"What this means is that Commons, we believe, will begin, more and more to be seen primarily in its second role, as an image bank for the world." and "The concept of educational scope, we think, becomes increasingly difficult to define as these archival instincts take over Commons"

I think whole section correctly identified a factor in why the handling Commons has been so much more complex than handling of Wikipedia.

Some of our projects derive from value by what they exclude, while others do not. At Wikipedia, having no article is better than having a bad article-- an article filled exclusively with errors, for example. But at Commons, the case is never so clearcut. A bad image might be useful precisely to illustrate bad images. At commons, the person who submitted the image may not even speak the same language as the person reviewing it. It is a fundamentally different kind of project. It's not an encyclopedia or a dictionary-- it's a giant information archive.

For any given image, it may be hard to guess, looking ahead, what potential future educational value a given image will someday provide. But if you consider the images in total-- a giant image bank full of images of every variety, all free-licensed-- the value is truly overwhelming.

WMF was the right organization to host a free-licensed image bank when they started Commons. They should continue to do so in the future. --Alecmconroy 08:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding religious imagery

General notes

Again, thanking Mr Harris for his fine works, and the following is not presented as a criticism of Mr Harris but rather as a thought for the board to consider.

Mr Harris defines two classes of controversial images: sexual/violent, and religions. Further, he gives three examples of the latter: Images of Muhammed, of Bahá'u'lláh, and of Mormon temple garments.

Regarding the first two, at least a modicum intellectual respectability may be attached to a religion's policy of not showing such images, on the grounds of iconoclasm -- the argument that it's human nature to worship material images and things, and that this interferes with the contemplation of immaterial entities and concepts, which is more important, and that therefore images that might become the object of worship should be avoided.

I don't see why Wikimedia should pay any attention to that, but at least it's not lunacy, and a case could be made for respecting that. A very weak case in my view, but a case. (There is also a political aspect, which I'll address below.)

But Mormon temple garments? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Mormons could object to the display of such items only on one of these grounds: 1) rank superstition or 2) desire not to appear ridiculous or 3) just plain special pleading. I don't see why we should pay any particular attention to these arguments just because they are made by a religion rather than a political party or corporation or other entity. I would not cast so wide a net in exempting religious imagery. The English Wikipedia displays images of Mormon temple garments and should continue to do so, and these should not be placed in a protected class for filtering.

Note on pragmatism

Although it's not mentioned in the report, let's be honest: there is a political aspect to decisions to display certain religious images. Although what I have to say here also applies to Bahá'u'lláh's people and the Mormons and whomever, realistically it's images of Muhammed that are a particular sticking point, politically.

When images of Muhammed specifically come up, the desire to avoid the drama (and maybe worse) associated with displaying such images is part of the equation in people's minds. You could call a desire to avoid such drama "pragmatic" or you could call it "cowardly", and reasonable people could disagree about that. (Or a person could say "Oh noooooooo we don't consider that", but that person would be being either mendacious or idiotic. It would be insane to not even consider pragmatic political aspects of a fraught subject, and the Foundation would not be doing its job if it didn't.)

But recalling (attributed) Denis Diderot, the creator of (to simplify) the first true encyclopedia and therefore in my view the spiritual father of all encyclopedias: "Let us strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest." Harsh words, but it's a harsh world. Perhaps we have forgotten this, as here in the free world we have cowed the kings and priests (for the time being). But you still have your mullahs and Supreme Leaders and General Secretaries of the Party and so forth. These people are the blood enemy of freedom of information and Wikimedia and everything it stands for. To what extent do we bow to these people. The English Wikipedia (all I know of) displays images of Muhammed, and should continue to do so, and these should not be placed in a protected class for filtering.

I imagine that Hu Jintao would just as soon that we not display images of the Dalia Lama or of Falun Gong demonstrations and so forth. And he has nuclear missiles and 2 million soldiers. Not to mention he could shut us down in two minutes via DoS attack anytime he wanted. So if we redact images of Muhammed and so forth on pragmatic political grounds, what do we say if Hu Jintao's people come calling?

Well. If there's a political aspect to the decision to include religious imagery in a protected class, I suppose we'll never hear of it. Maybe that's for the best, but I'd rather have it said and discussed openly. Herostratus 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You make an excellent absolute argument from a position of moderation. It's clearly unfair to pick and choose whose religious taboos should be honored and whose shouldn't — who do you ask to make such a decision? A believer will say absolutely, and an unbeliever is ignorant of the faith. I do strongly believe, for example, that if the objective is to make an abject surrender to terrorist threats, then at least the policy should say (literally) "this is an abject surrender to terrorist threats", just as policies regarding obedience to U.S. law simply say so, rather than attempting (for example) to explain how hundred-year copyrights are such a grand and noble idea. Wnt 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers

Why is it that the issue of spoilers has been completely absent from the study and its surrounding discussions? It is certainly "controversial content" and is apparently identical (in terms of response and possible "solutions") to the types of controversial content described previously. Wikimedia does not give spoiler warnings, nor does it give the option to hide spoilers or in any way allow a reader to specifically avoid them, and there is clearly a large segment of the audience that are angered by the spoilers. --Yair rand 04:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point. I recally it being mentioned briefly, though I think it has rarely generated the focused anger that other controversial content has. –SJ · talk | translate 10:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Because nobody has a right to not have their movie ruined, but everyone deserves a shot at never seeing a vagina.

Or, for the underworld-inclined: spoilers ruin your night out, but penises ruin you for eternity.

I jest. User:Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Should users be able to filter "The Birth of Venus"?

Back at part two, the question came up of whether we should allow users the option to choose to filter images like Birth of Venus or Goya's Naked Maja?

• I oppose censorship in any form, and my ideal solution would be to provide no _direct_ aid to filter creation.
• But if we do create filters, I would prefer those filters to be as culturally-neutral as possible. If we let some Christian users choose to hide images of topless women, surely we also should let some Muslim users choose to hide images of women without veil.

My view sort of surprised me at first. Robertmharris, I believe, has the very reasonable opposite point of view-- that we should allow a little bit of filtration, but only in clearly define classes where controversialness has been pre-established.

Since my own view was a little counter-intuitive, I wondered how rare or common, and what other views on the subject are.

To everyone else, if we were to filter commons, should the filter be "culture neutral" (able to filter any images objected to by any group) or "quality-based" (only able to filter pre-defined classes of clearly controversial information)? or something else? --Alecmconroy 12:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

One option might be to go for a completely open and culturally neutral method. Allow users to specify a list of categories that they would like to avoid in addition to the "standard ones" that they can select. That way "explicit nudity", "explicit sexual body parts" and "explicit sexual material" can be pre-set options under sexuality, but a user who also wanted to avoid (say) women without a veil would merely have to ensure that this category was available on Commons (or added if there was enough demand) and then manually add it to their own filter. Blogs and forums will spread how to do this like wildfire so the educational aspect is easy.

On a technical level What I'd do is when a wiki page includes an image or media, the tag for that image or media always includes a string such as "cat:CAT1|CAT2|CAT3|CAT4...". That way the HTML for any image in a wiki page always includes a list of the categories for that image (which we store anyway whenever that image is updated). So any filtering code of any kind can examine the HTML for images in the page and filter any images whose categories match their filter list. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that if filters are implemented, they need to be culturally neutral, meaning each user can fine tune exactly what they want to filter. --Xeeron 11:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure categorization at the granularity most people assume on commons is anywhere near what would enable most people's idea of "fine tuning." Maybe we should just take things on a case-by-case basis? 71.198.176.22 02:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Category protection?

One question - does this proposal open the door to "category editing vandalism". For example we can anticipate trolls who remove categories to enjoy the shock effect when images appear despite filtering - this would be a classic trolling activity. We need to be sure we can defend against that - and without necessarily protecting the whole image. We may need "category removal protection" added to MediaWiki in some form. One option might be a Mediawiki:Unremovable categories page which (like other black/whitelists) lists those categories which may not be added to or removed from images except by someone in a given $wgconfig usergroup.

But then which categories get protected and which do not?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Report addition

I think it is important that the report also summarize one point discussed above.

There may well be a wide perception that sexual material is harmful. Judging by the thread above this is not in its widest sense a belief of the psychological profession but it may have wide acceptance in the lay-population and be seen as a reason for censorship.

I think it could be important that the report makes clear whether or not this is believed to be so (and if necessary asks 2 - 3 well known specialists for a citeable soundbite/opinion). If it is not, as the thread above seems to suggest, then the report needs to be clear that current psychological opinions have been sought from [well known academics X, Y and Z] and state that exposure to sexual material in most cases has [whatever effect or no effect], but in deference to their social sensitivities a means is going to be provided to allow computer owners wishing to avoid such images, a way to do so.

I think it's worth considering whether it's beneficial to make clear this is a purely social measure not a harm-prevention one, if that is in fact clinically understood to be the case. That said the benefits from educating and explanation of stance would need to be balanced and considered in light of whether it actually would be beneficial (some, probably a vocal minority, feel very strongly to the contrary). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Another View

Hi, I just wanted to offer a different perspective to the study as a member of 2 of the biased cultures and regions of the world.

• Children- The issue here seems to be the depiction of explicit Sexual content to minors which beyond a philosophical stance is also illegal in many countries and a few states in the US. My definition of child would be the same as any legal definition of it, which I would recommend for the study as well. The nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is evolving everyday, its already used and preferred as a source of information and research not only for college students but High school and middle grade as well. Our responsibility should be to limit the direct exposure of minors to explicit content as a trusted source. I agree there could be an option like a collapsible galleries where certain pictures might be considered sensitive to minors. But there are 2 issues here that we must confront, First access to explicit images is not hard to find on the internet, no matter how graphic, second our responsibility as a trusted source of learning for minors should govern what we include in the galleries.

• Images of the sacred- My suggestion might be beyond the scope of the study here. First, I agree about issues of cultural relativism and Contextualism in dealing with different cultures and religions that are bound to come up as Wikipedia expands. It might be hard to consider another point-of-view from a western post-modern society where blasphemy is nearly non-existent. I agree that the education value inherent in sensitive images should be considered, if certain sensitive issues could be avoided by not including certain pictures without losing the educational value then the laws of parsimony should govern whats included. My other suggestion would be to defer to the community on these issues. Debates on sensitive political/religious/cultural issues have raged on for years on Wikipedia, its the community consensus that wins in the end.

• Commons Dual Mission- The idea that the commons is turning into a general image repository and losing sight of the its core values seems slightly hyperbolic at this point. In terms of growth in the commons, you might be overlooking community collaborations and projects that bring is an increased influx of images to the commons. The Geograph Project in the UK for example is solely responsible for uploading 2 million images on the commons, similar projects with museums, galleries etc. and other collaborations being undertaken are evident of the core principle and educational values of those images. Any restriction on commons would curtail the growth of these collaboration, which should occupy the highest priority in terms of preservation.

Thanks for reading. Regards. Theo10011 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

One comment, on "[D]epiction of explicit Sexual content to minors which beyond a philosophical stance is also illegal in many countries and a few states in the US... My definition of child would be the same as any legal definition of it, which I would recommend for the study as well".

Legal definition of "children" varies massively round the world, restricted content varies from none to strict limits (which may be social or legal), and age of consent in law for viewing sexual material varies extremely widely from no age limit to "even adults not allowed" (whatever age "adult" might be). Other laws make it legal to own at home but (even for adults) not to take across borders or set other idiosyncratic restrictions (in the U.S. the right to possess does not necessarily imply the right to transport). Rules can also vary greatly depending upon the nature and context rather than the material itself (in the U.K. a still or extract from a film may be classified differently from the film itself) or how it is produced (CGI, drawing, photorealism, cartoon, can each influence legality). This definition isn't as simple as it sounds. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My definition was strictly in the legal sense, not social. There are laws in some states even in US that still have antiquated laws about outlawing pornography and depiction of nudity, its the same around the world with differing stances of whats considered moral. The legal definition however would be the easiest to follow and as a matter of law should be followed. US Federal or the state where the projects/foundation are located would suffice for any future legal repercussions, which I thought was one of the central issues, limiting legal exposure and liability for user-generated content. Theo10011 17:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Legal definition of "children" varies massively round the world" WMF follows Florida law, which narrows down the potential legal ambiguity to "anyone under 18 can't see the Wiki porn". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs of children - some problems

• "So, obviously, serving the needs of “children” could not be accommodated by a single version of the projects."

This is untrue. As an elementary school student, I used Britannica for many of my assignments. The children that would need an encyclopedia are those that would use an encyclopedia, which are not those too young to be able to read one. We also have simple.wikipedia as a project for those who have lower linguistic abilities. Thus, we do not need to "accommodate" something as we already have enough accommodations.

• "If we were to decide to refine that definition, and concentrate on dealing with pre-pubescent children"

Puberty has nothing to do with reading ability, and many Elementary school students can read at an adult level while many adults cannot read at a 5th grade level.

• "As well, we assume that a children’s encyclopedia might not be able to adhere to the Wikimedia principle that projects should be created by their users"

This ignores the fact that many of Wikipedia's readers, editors, and even a large portion of the admin corp are children. They are already here, so talking about children in the above manner ignores the reality of the situation. A new project would not be possible nor would it ensure that children would stop using Wikipedia. Thus, a proposal of a new project has nothing to do with the original problem this study is supposed to address. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The study seems to overlook the fact that a large editor-base and even the admins are composed of teenagers and "pre-pubescent children", they are also one of the most active user-bases on Wikipedia, So to formulate policies that exclude them or consider them a separate entity would be paradoxical. Theo10011 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically, those under the age of 13 aren't legally allowed to join Wikipedia or the WMF without having parental permission per the law and the WMF complies by having a link that says as much as that when creating an account. This isn't figured in at all with the discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem we have with you, Ottava, is that like a Republican politician, no matter how often you are caught saying something that is completely untrue you are never embarrassed and you just go on to make up more "facts". There's nothing about age on the account creation page,^[6] and w:WP:CHILD describes the enforcement of policies with no age limits. Wnt 14:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"We"? Are you admitting in public now that you operate with a group of others who go to these matters in order to push a fringe POV? Also, I guess you don't actually look at things before you accuse others of being wrong. This page is connected to the account creation page via this page. So is this page, this page, etc. Chances are, you didn't even bother to look through anything. By the way, have you heard of COPPA before? To comply with various requirements non-profits still are affected by, we immediately delete any personal information that comes from those under 13 and take other measures to ensure their protection. The problem that Wikimedia has is that they license stuff up for commercial groups to potentially sell material, and you can find many books on Amazon that do just that. The Supreme Court has already stated that many of the provisions would then apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I operate with a group of others all right. Like, everyone else but you who edits this page. All your links prove is that Wikipedia has more pages encouraging children to join Wikipedia, while warning them to be careful. There isn't a "13" in any of them except the 13 million users on Wikipedia. w:COPPA is an actual law (I'll omit discussing whether it's a constitutional one) but it doesn't regulate non-commercial enterprises like Wikipedia. Even if it did Wikipedia strongly discourages/removes/blocks posting of personal information by kids already. But that is not the same thing as having a notice on the "create an account" page telling kids that they can't create an account. Wnt 15:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone, just you and a handful of people. Those like Theo come here on their own to voice concerns. Furthermore, the links put forth show that you haven't bothered to look, but I didn't include all of them nor those from other projects. And maybe you didn't see that the SCOTUS already ruled that it deals with non-profits that have a commercial interaction, i.e. when those books are sold based on Wiki stuff, it is tied into Wiki (since those children potentially provide the information for the books). There are plenty of parental warnings and the rest, and COPPA does not say kids cannot create accounts. No one said those under 13 cannot create accounts - what was said is that parental advisement is mentioned already by Wikipedia suggesting that we do target kids as part of our audience and we are already taking measures to accommodate them on our projects. You've been trying to act like we don't. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not set up to support some for-profit corporation. Your claim is essentially that people aren't allowed to put things to the public domain or a free license if the content is potentially subject to any sort of regulation in anyone's hands. That's an idea that would undermine the entire public domain, and if it existed it would demand a fanatical opposition from everyone here. Wnt 00:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Licensing material readily available for sale by whoever wants to sets it up for-profit corporations. We are set up for both private and public, for profit and non-profit, readers. Therefore, it falls under the SCOTUS ruling. You don't even know what SCOTUS ruling it was so you are bsing about if it applies or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think under-13 demographic would be too small to be a factor, similar issues come up with social media sites like Facebook etc. with minimum age requirement of the user but its hard to establish the age of a user/editor if they don't comply and declare it themselves. We would have to assume that there would be an influential number of under-13 registered users to be a factor in the study, which I would think is not that sizable at the moment,the registered ones at least. Theo10011 21:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, you wrote that "A new project would not be possible nor would it ensure that children would stop using Wikipedia." Nothing can control the behavior of children except parents and legal guardians (if they try hard enough). As long as we facilitate some filtering options, or provide a clean fork for schools, we have done our job. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to protect the innocent but to inform the ignorant. If children are exposed to controversial images on Wikipedia, the fault is on those who were not supervising them. We shouldn't write to the least common denominator of controversy nor to sensibilities of the most vulnerable or easily shocked. Not every part of the world is G rated, and an encyclopedia cannot be either if it is to fulfill its mission. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I Agree, our job should be only to provide a filtering option or some sort of school-friendly version for children, the onus of what kids are exposed to on the internet rests with the parents and guardians, Our job should be to provide an option. Other encyclopedias we had in school growing up can't compare to the sheer size of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is much-much larger but we should consider those encyclopedias we had as models in term of their school/kid-friendly nature. It should be about free dispensation of knowledge without over-exposure or confinement. Theo10011 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Many of our IPs are children, so the only way to have a filter is to have one that logged in users can see content instead of only logged in users can block content. By the way, there is a big difference between G rating and X rating. Standard television tends to be PG13 with children able to see it without any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor behavior

I have commented to Ottava on his conduct here. So as not to disrupt these pages, I have directed the post to his talk page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor nit: falling age of puberty

The 'falling age of puberty' thing appears to be a myth. It seems that the age at onset of menses has been quite stable in developed countries for four decades. The only change is that recent studies have used completely untrained observers (each subject's own mother), who mistook "fat" for "breast tissue". See PMC 1719038/PMID 11806872 (free full text). WhatamIdoing 15:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you one academic paper and raise you another. :-)

James F. (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Filter images

Yes, please filter these images! --92.203.73.106 18:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.healthkey.com/health/sns-health-girls-puberty-age,0,1961792.story (archive)
  • In 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content: Part Three on 2016-04-10 15:15:30, 503 Service Unavailable

The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [7].--MABot (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)