331
edits
WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content: Difference between revisions
→Controversial sites: new section
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) |
(→Controversial sites: new section) |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::Thanks, Arcane. The two wikis mentioned are essentially dead wikis at this point. They did not promote pornography, and "child molestation" suffers from some boundary problems, and the history of this is clear: discussing it is, in itself, highly disruptive. It's a slippery slope when we take a "moral" stand for something like an index. There are differing boundaries and opinions, and people in one part of the world imagine that the whole world agrees with them. Bottom line, debates over what is and what is not "beyond the pale" can tear a wiki apart, I've seen it. We don't have this issue with the phone directory! "Doxxing" may not be illegal, and the policy does not claim that it is. The more relevant issue is "attack sites." Generally, we have indexed them, to my knowledge. My own opinion is that indexing anything is fine, unless the indexing is such as to directly support illegal purpose. For example, a wiki that hosts copyrighted content with the intention to defeat copyright, that's illegal to knowingly link to, even. As to what is borderline, process should be set up to make decisions. The policy should give sound guidance that applies to most cases, and then refer to process where it's more difficult. A basic policy that allows indexing, say a Holocaust Denial site, -- I consider this highly offensive -- can avoid disruptive debate. Indexing is *not* approval. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | ::Thanks, Arcane. The two wikis mentioned are essentially dead wikis at this point. They did not promote pornography, and "child molestation" suffers from some boundary problems, and the history of this is clear: discussing it is, in itself, highly disruptive. It's a slippery slope when we take a "moral" stand for something like an index. There are differing boundaries and opinions, and people in one part of the world imagine that the whole world agrees with them. Bottom line, debates over what is and what is not "beyond the pale" can tear a wiki apart, I've seen it. We don't have this issue with the phone directory! "Doxxing" may not be illegal, and the policy does not claim that it is. The more relevant issue is "attack sites." Generally, we have indexed them, to my knowledge. My own opinion is that indexing anything is fine, unless the indexing is such as to directly support illegal purpose. For example, a wiki that hosts copyrighted content with the intention to defeat copyright, that's illegal to knowingly link to, even. As to what is borderline, process should be set up to make decisions. The policy should give sound guidance that applies to most cases, and then refer to process where it's more difficult. A basic policy that allows indexing, say a Holocaust Denial site, -- I consider this highly offensive -- can avoid disruptive debate. Indexing is *not* approval. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::A phone directory would have to make a decision about whether to list controversial organizations like NAMBLA, or controversial people like David Thorstad. (My guess is that the latter might prefer not to have a publicly listed street address and phone number anyway.) Also they would need to decide what kinds of advertisements to allow. I'm not sure what "two wikis" you're saying are dead, since there are three mentioned above, but BoyWiki would probably fall in the "Active" category. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 21:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | :::A phone directory would have to make a decision about whether to list controversial organizations like NAMBLA, or controversial people like David Thorstad. (My guess is that the latter might prefer not to have a publicly listed street address and phone number anyway.) Also they would need to decide what kinds of advertisements to allow. I'm not sure what "two wikis" you're saying are dead, since there are three mentioned above, but BoyWiki would probably fall in the "Active" category. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 21:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
== Controversial sites == | |||
[http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex:Prohibited_content&diff=186930&oldid=186925] Leucosticte put this in, I reverted, he replaced it: | |||
:''Also, listing sites that advocate legalization of activities that most of the public currently deems immoral could offend some readers and harm WikiIndex's reputation.'' | |||
My edit summary removing it was: | |||
:''(This is attempting to enter Leucosticte's favorite territory. He knows that this would prohibit linking to academic sites. That's the trap he sets up.) | |||
And Leucosticte, reverting, had: | |||
:''(Undid revision 186925 by Abd (talk) academic sites are a non-issue because they are usually databases behind a paywall rather than wikis) | |||
Actually, I had in mind Wikiversity. Wikiversity is not, as a site, going to "advocate legalization" of anything, but it may well ''cover'' such. And, indeed, people will complain. There are differences across cultures, such that what one culture accepts, another thinks it monstrously offensive. There is popular opinion on some issues, and then there is academic study and opinion. On one of Leudosticte's favorite topics, there are web sites that collect academic papers that support unpopular views. There is a vast gulf between academic opinion and popular opinion. Are we going to censor that? The issue of whether or not a site is *advocating* or merely documenting or discussing, can be knotty to disentangle, and, again, experience is that if these discussions are necessary for operating the wiki, disruption is likely. | |||
In the WMF family of wikis, Wikipedia has a strict child protection policy: | |||
:''Wikipedia regards the safety of children using the site as a key issue. Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely. | |||
It is possible that as many as a third of experienced users do not actually support that policy, but experience is, again, that attempting to discuss it leads to massive flame wars, where people get very upset -- in both directions. My own response is to notice the indirection, "inappropriate," inappropriate according to whom? Dutch users, Texan users, what? However, nobody debates the policy because as set up, it's not so much of a problem. As well, there are academic studies claiming that the reputed harm of some kinds of "inappropriate relationships" has been exaggerated. I am *not* agreeing with those studies, and, remember, I'm a father, with seven children and six grandchildren. What I do know is that the entire topic is one that is almost impossible to discuss rationally, it tore RationalWiki apart. | |||
The WP policy is reasonably acceptable because it is not to be implemented visibly, on-wiki. There is no public discussion. The policy is quite clear, and users who have violated the policy by accusing others of the "offense" have been blocked. (And then they complain, on Wikipediocracy, that Wikipedia "tolerates pedophiles." Total mess.) | |||
:Leucosticte got himself blocked on meta for attempting to discuss global child protection policy. The blocking admin was actually protecting him, but L. came here and immediately created a bio for that admin. [[MZMcBride]]. I tagged that for deletion, Leucosticte removed the tag. Had Leucosticte been allowed to continue what he was doing on meta, a global ban would have been likely, I know that community well. What Wikipedia has learned is that even discussing the topic is highly disruptive. So our own policy should avoid setting up conditions for such discussion. Nobody discusses the phone directory, whether a porn shop should be allowed to have a listing. Or a pedophile, for that matter. If they have a phone, a listing. I'm suggesting that if they have a wiki, a listing. The listing may be minimal, and, again, the whole concept that WikiIndex exists to "discuss the wikisphere" is a problem. That requires an active community, supervised or facilitated, and I don't see that this is regular here, vide Leucosticte making that non-deletion decision. Because that page was relatively harmless, I didn't make a fuss about it. | |||
:When disruptive users are allowed to disrupt, other users leave. If the wiki management doesn't care, well, it doesn't care about the future of the wiki. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||