lovemy9kids Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Wikipedia and porn? :( http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/?test=latestnews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Well, hmmm.... I don't have anything against Fox News like some people do. But I'm trying to figure out why this is news. It sounds like a 5-year old tattling on his big brother. It is not exactly big news that Wiki has graphic images/info available for those who want to view it. I suppose I'm of the opinion that if one doesn't want to view garbage one should use one's own filters and leave the rest of the population to itself. Maybe Wiki feels the same and objects to being "ratted out" by the founder who no longer has any control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soror Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Well, hmmm.... I don't have anything against Fox News like some people do. But I'm trying to figure out why this is news. It sounds like a 5-year old tattling on his big brother. It is not exactly big news that Wiki has graphic images/info available for those who want to view it. I suppose I'm of the opinion that if one doesn't want to view garbage one should use one's own filters and leave the rest of the population to itself. Maybe Wiki feels the same and objects to being "ratted out" by the founder who no longer has any control. :iagree: I kind of feel the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 This was discussed several months ago. I don't have time to search for the thread though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshell Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Thank you for the heads up..;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cin Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 While I understand how it can sound like tattling, I am glad that I heard this info. for some reason, it never occurred to me that Wiki would have porn on it. I can understand anatomical pics, but some of the things I saw in their most frequently viewed are NOT just Anatomy and Physiology. I guess I sort of viewed wikipedia as the old encyclopedias. And while my DD have had access and used wikipedia, I still have been in the same room, usually watching from behind them. I guess now I need to know exactly what they are looking up and see if I can make out any porn or slang of it before they actually look it up (you know, like that sporting goods store). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Well, hmmm.... I don't have anything against Fox News like some people do. But I'm trying to figure out why this is news. It sounds like a 5-year old tattling on his big brother. It is not exactly big news that Wiki has graphic images/info available for those who want to view it. I suppose I'm of the opinion that if one doesn't want to view garbage one should use one's own filters and leave the rest of the population to itself. Maybe Wiki feels the same and objects to being "ratted out" by the founder who no longer has any control. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SailorMom Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I don't care who is reporting it, Wikipedia has known this is a horrible problem they have, and they have refused to do anything because of profits. This is not new, and from experience I can tell you that Wikipedia has some really horrible, nasty stuff that is NOT caught by many/most parental filters because of the way their website is labeled. I had to set up our Norton Online Family (which is one of the best out there and we've had it for about four years now) account to block Wikipedia completely because there is no other way to block the images and articles. If you have never seen some of the disgustingly XXX rated images and descriptions on Wiki, then lucky you, but it isn't about us just making sure we don't look at it in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 The Larry Sanger quoted in the article started a thread about this here, several months ago. He has a grudge against Wikipedia. I don't know why he got the idea to try to continue his grudge match here of all places. From the story: The former philosophy professor keeps close tabs on Wikipedia and its governance, despite leaving the company in 2002 and later founding Citizendium, a competing open-source encyclopedia. He owns a failing competing site. The slant from stories on this issue from tech dirt, slashdot or other techie websites is quite a bit different from the slant from Fox News. I think you generally *do* have to be searching something pretty specific to get anything graphic on wiki. I've never accidentally got graphic images from wiki. I agree that those pages should come with a warning and an "I am over 18" click through, just like other not safe for kids sites. But, understand that Larry Sanger is in a grudge match with wikipedia. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before wikipedia adds kid safe searching. In the meantime, if you don't know how to turn on google's safe search and add your own filters and blockers, then find a local techie friend who does to help you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I guess I sort of viewed wikipedia as the old encyclopedias. And while my DD have had access and used wikipedia, I still have been in the same room, usually watching from behind them. I guess now I need to know exactly what they are looking up and see if I can make out any porn or slang of it before they actually look it up (you know, like that sporting goods store). Except old encyclopedias actually had editors who were accountable. Wiki is group edits (see Colbert and elephants :) ). Every college I'm aware of will say that wiki can be okay to use for getting an initial idea but it under no circumstances should be cited ever. No filter can catch everything. Teach your kids to be careful on the internet. There are also ways to hide links and redirect, so you may click on something you think is safe and get a virus or for a time some people were sending others to goatse (don't search!!). Think of the internet as a seedy part of town where you can easily end up in a wrong back alley. Don't assume you're "safe" online - anywhere. All sites can be hacked. The internet is a tremendous resource but there's a lot of vile stuff on it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrySanger Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I'm a homeschooler and I happen to have an account on this site. Mention my name here and, Voldemort-like, I am apt to turn up sooner or later! Of course I have no grudges toward Wikipedia. I do have some legitimate criticisms, however, which I make because I co-founded Wikipedia and I therefore feel I bear some responsibility for the site. As long as I believe I can make a difference, I am probably going to take action. SailorMom, Wikipedia is a non-profit site. They refuse to install even an optional filter, like Google's SafeSearch, not because of profits but on principle. The principles seem to shift, however. First they passed a resolution (in 2011) which unanimously directed the Wikimedia Foundation to install a filter: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content Then they passed a resolution (a few months ago) which unanimously overturned the earlier resolution: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Personal_Image_Hiding_Feature So now they deliberately, on principle, refuse to install a filter. Even when an effective one is handed to them essentially on a platter, they refuse to consider it. More about this problem, which I think any family with younger children who use Wikipedia should care about, can be found here: http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Mrs Mungo! I read news, yet this slipped by me. I love that you know what is happening, when it is happening! The Larry Sanger quoted in the article started a thread about this here, several months ago. He has a grudge against Wikipedia. I don't know why he got the idea to try to continue his grudge match here of all places. From the story: He owns a failing competing site. The slant from stories on this issue from tech dirt, slashdot or other techie websites is quite a bit different from the slant from Fox News. I think you generally *do* have to be searching something pretty specific to get anything graphic on wiki. I've never accidentally got graphic images from wiki. I agree that those pages should come with a warning and an "I am over 18" click through, just like other not safe for kids sites. But, understand that Larry Sanger is in a grudge match with wikipedia. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before wikipedia adds kid safe searching. In the meantime, if you don't know how to turn on google's safe search and add your own filters and blockers, then find a local techie friend who does to help you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 SailorMom, Wikipedia is a non-profit site. They refuse to install even an optional filter, like Google's SafeSearch, not because of profits but on principle. The principles seem to shift, however. First they passed a resolution (in 2011) which unanimously directed the Wikimedia Foundation to install a filter: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content Then they passed a resolution (a few months ago) which unanimously overturned the earlier resolution: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Personal_Image_Hiding_Feature'>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Personal_Image_Hiding_Feature So now they deliberately, on principle, refuse to install a filter. Even when an effective one is handed to them essentially on a platter, they refuse to consider it. It appears they did not refuse to consider it, but determined after careful consideration not to install an outsourced filter. We trust our community, and we respect the arguments that have been made opposing the feature as well as those in support of it. We affirm our support for better user choice and user preferences, but do not want to prescribe a specific mechanism for offering that choice. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Personal_Image_Hiding_Featur As a parent whose children have learned a great amount of information online, including wikipedia, I would support the refusal of adopting an independent organization making what amounts to another person or organization's moral choices for customers under pressure. Wikipedia does not filter information which means that although there's some imagery that is going to be offensive to some, as an encyclopedic site, its uncensored information is highly valuable. A family concerned with what their children see online can take responsibility for their own censorship needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 This was discussed several months ago. I don't have time to search for the thread though. I was just clicking in to see if this was a resurrected thread, myself. This was already beaten to death. Let it die already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.