Virtue (Latin virtus; Greek ἀρετή) is moral excellence. A virtue is a character trait or quality valued as being always good in and of itself. — Wikipedia
“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other” — Alexis de Tocqueville, taken from Wikipedia
Wikipedia represents what is great about our society, the freedom to think, to contribute and exchange ideas and knowledge, and to make this available to everyone. Wikipedia is, in a large sense, what American democracy was to the world in the 1830’s when de Tocqueville wrote his observations. Knowledge is no longer the patent owned by a few encyclopedia companies, nor to be reserved into the corners of a library or behind a subscribers-only login screen. No, in one virtual space, you can read contributions that can range from the basics an elementary student can comprehend, to the advanced knowledge of research scientists and university professors. And this knowledge, like American democracy, is basically uncontrolled, unpredictable, imperfect and not always fair or just.
But as de Tocqueville, and many American historians observed, the glue that held together American democracy was this common virtue, rooted in religion. American religion in the 1830’s was a far cry from Bible-toting, piestic fundamentalism. Rather it was a general understanding of what was right and wrong, what was descent. Most importantly, in a land where self-interest was unleashed, it was yet tamed enough to allow society to function.
Today, Wikipedia is in crisis over the presentation of pornography. In a free society, this is both a tough, yet not-so-tough call. It’s tough because often what makes something “artful” is it’s honesty. So, if you wish to read about a body part, you do need to have a clear presentation of what it is — do you not? Yet at some point a line is crossed where the aspect of human nature that is enticed is not that of facts, but of a prurient interest.
After a FoxNews expose on pornography via the Wikipedian portal, founder Jimmy Wales put out this announcement,
“Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support. This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images.”
He then proceeded to remove a number of images on his own. Other editors joined him and before long 400 images were deleted. The Wikimedia Foundation finally stepped in and put a stop to it, so to speak, by adding images back. To their credit, which the Fox report did not clearly point out, was that they admitted the matter needs to be reviewed. Their concern was the method, not the content itself. In their view, a clearer policy needs to be written that will govern what is considered of “educational value.”
How about a better word — “safe”. And this is not really all that tough to call. When I was young, many moons ago, I and my friends came across encyclopedic references to various body parts and functions which we thought were rather amusing. And since my mother worked in a hospital, it was no surprise that I would come across open journals or medical books that were far more explicit than what one would find in World Book Encyclopedia. Yet the odd thing is that I did not find such knowledge traumatic nor memorable because of its context. Context is everything, and anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that.
Fox News centered on the article on pedophilia. I checked it out, and what I found was the usual bland, Wikipedic ambiance of knowledge on the topic. So where was the problem? Well, down at the bottom of the article is a link to the Wikimedia. It was there that I began to wonder what the Wikimedia Foundation considered to be “educational”. Even if they were line drawings, the depiction of the techniques and caricatures of child abuse were not “educational” unless you are part of the police force investigating such abuse. It was horrible, and no telling of the effect it might have on children (and adults for that matter).
What the Wikimedia Foundation needs to consider is “what’s the point?” Have we degenerated as a society that a mere verbal explanation is no longer adequate, but we have to actually see the act to appreciate how despicable and evil is child abuse?
If, in the end, a large segment of the population considers Wikipedia unsafe, then it will most likely invite a competing cast. Knowledge is transferable, and what makes Wikipedia technologically possible is reproducible. It will be sad, and unfortunate, that the public will lose confidence in Wikipedia, but it can happen. Imagine what will happen if schools lose confidence in Wikipedia? It will be added to the list of blocked sites.
So what is our part in this democracy of knowledge? You can participate in the discussion by joining Wikipedia and linking to the Community site. Second, just don’t offer your personal opinion, but encourage your school board, teacher and youth organizations to offer suggestions on how to make Wikipedia safer. Monitor who is on the review board, and consider if anyone is representing your concerns. The review board may need to be broadened to include people with a more “conservative” perspective.
The truth of the matter is that the Wikimedia Foundation has a pretty sophisticated system of reviewing material, simply because it must first validate that the material meets a “commons” criteria. The images cannot be presented unless it is uncopyrighted or approved by it’s owner if it is copyrighted. It also must be considered relevant to the topic.
Where the pressure needs to be applied is the “what’s the point” argument I mentioned above. Explaining pornographic and erotic art is one thing, but displaying it in full view is another. I learned a great deal about the the city of Pompeii without having to view the erotic art. It was enough for me to know that it was there and that the Romans applied Epicurean concepts to the fullest.
There is a lot of greyness to this topic. A final suggestion may be to consider a layered-access model. Without logging on, a viewer is provided the safest access. By logging on, and assenting to their age, users are provided extended access. Another vehicle may be a voting engine, where viewers can indicate their disapproval. Images that are frequently voted as being objectionable can be further reviewed.
