{"id":326,"date":"2010-07-22T19:05:54","date_gmt":"2010-07-22T19:05:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/?p=326"},"modified":"2010-07-22T19:57:36","modified_gmt":"2010-07-22T19:57:36","slug":"nazi-goatse-part-94","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/2010\/07\/22\/nazi-goatse-part-94\/","title":{"rendered":"Nazi Goatse, part 94."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Wikimedia has set up an investigation into <a href=\"http:\/\/meta.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content\">the question of contentious content<\/a> on the projects. Sexual content, violent content, pictures of Muhammad. The stuff that&#8217;s legal, but whose very existence offends people.<\/p>\n<p>My sympathy goes out to the poor sods charged with the study. I&#8217;d be hard put to think of a more poisoned chalice. No matter <i>what<\/i> they come up with, they will be called Nazis and worse. And whatever they come up with will change no minds whatsoever and be hideously distorted &mdash; if they said &#8220;the best thing for Wikimedia is a <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Goatse.cx\">goatse<\/a> at the top of all pages,&#8221; someone would say &#8220;yes, and this is why anyone advocating images purporting to be Muhammad should be beheaded.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"http:\/\/meta.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content\">meta talk page<\/a> has already been swooped upon by the usual participants and reduced to somewhat worse than uselessness.<\/p>\n<p>I can reiterate my basic argument, as father of a three-year-old and stepfather of two teenagers.<\/p>\n<p>The Wikimedia communities are sufficiently painstaking in making sure everything is educational and in context that I&#8217;d happily let my daughter in front of Wikimedia unrestricted. Anything sexual or horrifying would be informative and in context.<\/p>\n<p>The community works <i>incredibly hard<\/i> to make the contentious stuff good. Any kid who looks up <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Fuck\">&#8220;fuck&#8221;<\/a> on English Wikipedia will come away considerably educated, for example!<\/p>\n<p>The last shock I got from Wikipedia was when I followed a link on another site to <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Cock_ring\">Cock ring<\/a>, and was confronted with a large, shiny, erect penis. With, of course, a cock ring on it. Not something I&#8217;d care to have pop up on the screen at work &#8230; on the other hand, I have no reason to be going to an article on cock rings at work. I think the article was entirely reasonable and the use of the picture was entirely reasonable.<\/p>\n<p>Then there is the issue of important photos of war and so on that are <i>absolutely horrifying<\/i>. They should be in the encyclopedia, even if merely describing some of them makes my stomach do flip-flops.<\/p>\n<p>I think experience shows that the Wikimedia communities take their responsibility to educate seriously enough that &#8220;Wikipedia is not censored&#8221; is sufficient in practice. I have seen no cases that would lead me to think otherwise.<\/p>\n<p>As noted in the <a href=\"http:\/\/lists.wikimedia.org\/pipermail\/foundation-l\/2010-July\/thread.html#59843\">most recent foundation-l reiteration<\/a> of the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Muhammad\/images\">Muhammad image discussion<\/a>, Wikimedia has a firm bias to more information rather than less. It&#8217;s right there in the <a href=\"http:\/\/wikimediafoundation.org\/\">mission statement<\/a>. Increasing, not decreasing, knowledge is why the community is here at all. If you go against the statement and expectation that more information is better than less information &mdash; even if the information is horrible and shocking &mdash; the community will not accept it. If the Foundation forces filtering on the community, the community will get up and <i>leave<\/i>. As Milos Rancic <a href=\"http:\/\/lists.wikimedia.org\/pipermail\/foundation-l\/2010-July\/060053.html\">noted<\/a>, implementing any of the recommendations on that meta talk page will promptly lead to a fork. As it should &mdash; insulting your community in such a manner is an excellent way to get rid of them.<\/p>\n<p>Filtering should be left to third parties. The <a href=\"http:\/\/schools-wikipedia.org\/\">SOS Children Wikipedia for Schools<\/a> is an excellent example, and it&#8217;s quite popular and won&#8217;t get a teacher fired. Other than that, I&#8217;ve seen no evidence of actual demand for a filtered Wikimedia from end users &mdash; only from people who want to filter the projects themselves at the source.<\/p>\n<p>One perennial proposal is for images in given categories to be hidden from view for logged-in users. This is an idea I like, as it puts control in the hands of the viewer rather than third parties. All it requires is someone to code something that passes muster with <a href=\"http:\/\/tstarling.com\/blog\/\">Tim<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/mituzas.lt\/\">Domas<\/a> as unlikely to melt the servers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Wikimedia has set up an investigation into the question of contentious content on the projects. Sexual content, violent content, pictures of Muhammad. The stuff that&#8217;s legal, but whose very existence offends people. My sympathy goes out to the poor sods charged with the study. I&#8217;d be hard put to think of a more poisoned chalice. &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/2010\/07\/22\/nazi-goatse-part-94\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Nazi Goatse, part 94.&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-326","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-wiki"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4FmVR-5g","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=326"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":333,"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326\/revisions\/333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidgerard.co.uk\/notes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}