Will Virgin Killer be a Wikipedia killer?
Summary: The recent debacle over the Virgin Killer entry on Wikipedia has, unfortunately, lent further evidence to the site's detractors that Wikipedia is a repository for smut and unreferenced information, and otherwise has no educational value. The short answer to my question, though, "Will Virgin Killer be a Wikipedia killer?
The recent debacle over the Virgin Killer entry on Wikipedia has, unfortunately, lent further evidence to the site's detractors that Wikipedia is a repository for smut and unreferenced information, and otherwise has no educational value. The short answer to my question, though, "Will Virgin Killer be a Wikipedia killer?", is "I hope not."
By way of a quick recap, the Virgin Killer entry describes the fourth album by the band The Scorpions and the controversy caused by its album cover, depicting a young girl posed naked with only a key area covered by the appearance of cracked glass. I won't link to it here, but it's easy enough to find if you live outside the UK. To be fair to the detractors, including conservative groups in the States, I found the picture offensive. I read the article so I could understand the context, then closed it up and cleared my cache. I'm a parent, a serious free speech advocate, and a Wikipedia contributor and I was offended.
Then again, the point of the article on Wikipedia was largely to discuss the album cover and the problems it caused for the band, as well as their reactions to it. This image was released worldwide on the front of an LP, for better or worse, in 1976. The article treats the topic historically and objectively. I'll leave it to the lawyers to decide if the image should be removed; for now, the majority of Wikipedia contributors have agreed that the image should remain part of the post as an historical record of the album and its associated controversy. As the article itself notes,
The band's former lead guitarist Uli Jon Roth notes that the cover art of the "old Scorpion albums" were "usually done by other people."[6] He has since expressed regret over the original album cover. "Looking at that picture today makes me cringe. It was done in the worst possible taste. Back then I was too immature to see that. Shame on me — I should have done everything in my power to stop it."
What I'd rather address is the overall value of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, essentially, is an open source encyclopedia. Virtually anyone can contribute and, as a result, it attracts both well-written, well-sourced documents and some junk, including explicit content. The explicit content, though, represents a tiny fraction of the knowledge contained in Wikipedia and, quite frankly, if all my kids ever stumble across online is the Wikipedia entry on sex positions, then I've done a pretty good job with my content filter at home.
What should be noted is that many entries contain extensive works cited lists with countless primary sources. As with everything else on the Internet, our students need to learn to sort the wheat from the chaff, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I block Wikipedia at the primary grades because there are plenty of other resources written to primary reading levels with no potential for objectionable content. There is simply too much that is good in Wikipedia to block it entirely, though.
There is a reason that every library has a set or three of encyclopedia; they aren't to be used as the only source for research, but they provide a great starting point, as well as extensive reference lists. Wikipedia is not much different in that respect; we simply must be watchful and involved, as we must with all of our kids' online wanderings and teach them to use the resource appropriately.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
There's a lot of junk/bias in it
The censorship occurs on Wikipedia's side
I am bemused by the ironic ignorance of Wikipediots who rant and rail against the actions of the IWF, all while their beloved Wikipedia censors content and editors each and every hour of each and every day.
WP has been dancing too close to this fire for some time
For a clear example, visit the article about "boy" on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy There are five photos on this page, three of which are of unclothed boys. There is a reference to BDSM culture in one of the major subsections and in the "See also" section, one is directed to "pederasty".
Now, clearly this is not the wisest way to run an encyclopedia. Perhaps if these people begin to see the problem, common sense will prevail?
please take your bigotry elsewhere, kthxbai
Or perhaps it is bad that anyone, including kids, can read and learn about pederasty?
Maybe you are confusing 'child protection' with 'sterilizing the internet and restricting everyone else, so I can wallow happily in my self-righteous narrow-mindedness' ?
here here (nt)
That's "hear, hear," you ignorant putz.
re: That's "hear, hear," you ignorant putz.
BTW, my "handle" *is* my real name.
A free clue for you: Schools have been passing along the misspelling of "hear, hear" for ages.
Schools?
re: Schools?
My mistake.
Oh... well my sincere...
I did not mean to offend you. I feel so bad now. How would I ever make it up to you?
Always easier...
But if it makes you feel better to call people names, then I guess that's what you're going to do.
oh, maybe I was wrong
Remember that we are no longer discussing subtle differences between the Scorpions album cover and child pornography. We are instead dealing with the conviction that pictures of unclothed 2-year old boys should not be in an encyclopedia.
It is concerned citizens of similar persuasion that get books banned from public libraries. Have you actually tried arguing with one? They are usually on a quest for Decency and Common (Their) Sense; reason comes a distant third...
But ultimately, you are right - calling people names does make me feel better. At least for a little bit...
some people are hard to reason with
The problem with the "rah! rah!" approach is that it assumes that there is nothing to be discussed and that anyone who disagrees is either evil or irrational; thus, all that can or should be done is to suppress dissenting opinions and to silence or marginalize those who hold them (the exact opposite of free speech).
*sigh
OK, I admit - my response was rude and discourteous, if rather gratifying. I have no right to be intolerant to people I accuse of being intolerant. If the original commenter ever reads this, FWIW, I would like to apologize for causing offense.
Frankly, I didn't say anything about abolishing traditional ideas about decency. I would no more force my sense of propriety on someone else than I would like someone else's forced on me.
What actually gets me is the cognitive dissonance with which people so often mask their own offended sensibilities behind a 'protecting the children' facade. Rarely is there an explanation of who is protected and from what.
Sexual exploitation of children is, of course, a terrible crime. But censoring an encyclopedia just because there are perverted people who would get sexual gratification from the images is absurd. As to the other implied reason, censoring because children might read about inconvenient topics, I am afraid the internet already kinda broke that shell of information control - parents might have to start actually explaining things to kids.
As to the 'rah! rah!', here's a much more eloquent take on it than I can hope to write
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
Where is the line to be drawn?
as we hit the level bottom, replying here
And then there's the whole nuances thing. As far as me living in a city more or less "forces" me to wear pants in public, it's obvious that I accept some standards of decency forced upon myself - it is hardly an all-or-nothing stand. Also, I don't see how anyone can force you to keep on driving *through* Las Vegas more than once, if the billboards there bother you. If the billboards are so ubiquitous that you cannot possibly avoid them, well, I am sure there are still people who are offended by the sight of a woman's knee, but I hardly lose sleep at night over the fact that we as a society are forcing our standards of decency on them - it seems quite counterproductive...
So there's your answer about drawing the line - it's where there is a competing value which is so overwhelmingly important for us as a society that freedom of expression needs to be suspended. It is a functional equilibrium, rather than an arbitrary fixed (bikinis are ok, but nipples are not ok) line - which is why it's quite important that us silly freedom-of-speech fanboys continue with the 'rah!'s.
Not as easy to get around Vegas as you might think
What disturbs me, though, is the implication that a permissive society (far more permissive than is generally accepted now or at any other time in recorded history) is a fundamental human right and that those who don't want to live in such a society should either find another planet to live on or commit suicide. If that's your attitude then you should do a better job of telling me why I should adopt it.
Leaving Las Vegas
I think you are bundling two separate concepts - 'permissive' and 'invasive' - together, and that's putting you off both.
Permissive is good. A non-permissive society is a bleak puritanical dream. Do you really want your society to have a say on, for example, what two consenting adults can do in a closed bedroom?
Invasive, on the other hand, is bad in ways that we haven't even defined yet. Sadly, the description of right to privacy talks exclusively about your own information leaking out, and has no objection to other people stuffing as much as they want back in.
Freedom of expression does not mean that people have to listen to you. It guarantees that you can say what you want in public, it doesn't give you the right to tape stuff to someone's windows - you should be allowed to put whatever you want on a picture, but you shouldn't be allowed to put the picture where people cannot avoid seeing it. I think that as technology progresses, the need for inherent protection from invasive expression will become quite apparent.
I also think that you have a right to travel from South Utah to San Diego without getting any billboard images, naked women or not, rammed down your eyeballs. That is, unless the marketing agency owned the roads and by traveling you implicitly agreed to accept marketing images in exchange for free travel on the road... Uh-oh....
I don't see the problem..
An encyclopepia is supposed to reference to subjects involving a given entry. It's function is to educate, inform. While incompete I do not see wikipeadia as having failings such as you describe.
It's a shame that people who
Were you equally outraged at Campaign Finance Reform? If not, then you don't understand the intent of the free speech clause.
Hint: it wasn't about letting people put pictures of naked people on the internet.