Quora Options

[HRIP7]

Question on Quora:

Are Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons appropriate for K-8 students to use? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif)

[melloden]

Question on Quora:

Are Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons appropriate for K-8 students to use? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif)

Obviously not completely, but then again, neither is the Internet in general.

Now I think they have selective Internet filters that allow parents or schools to block certain pages (such as Wikipedia's pornography article) but just like any filter for any purpose, kids are smart enough to get around them if they're really horny.

[Detective]

Are there any K-9 users of Wikipedia? If so, do they know about FT2?

[thekohser]

Obviously not completely, but then again, neither is the Internet in general.

...sigh...

I don't know why it's necessary to say this so often, but people seem to forget it...

"The Internet in general" is not a tax-exempt 501-c-3 "educational charity". The Wikimedia Foundation is. It should be held to a higher standard than "the Internet in general".

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nope.gif)

[the fieryangel]

Question on Quora:

Are Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons appropriate for K-8 students to use? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif)

Obviously not completely, but then again, neither is the Internet in general.

Now I think they have selective Internet filters that allow parents or schools to block certain pages (such as Wikipedia's pornography article) but just like any filter for any purpose, kids are smart enough to get around them if they're really horny.

You must know this guy :

Mark Janssen, Dreamer-Pragmatist.
2 votes by Michael Fine and Brandon Harris
While I appreciate the concern over children, I have to wonder is the world appropriate for kids? I mean, the world is 99% an "adult"-centered place. A child has more danger being hit and killed by a car crossing the street than being damaged by an image or article in Wikipedia.

....Wikipedia, where convicted child molesters can anonymously "educate" children....

By the way, Sue Gardner has been made aware of all of this. I wonder if she's going to make some sort of statement?

[Cla68]

Some very good answers posted so far. I don't think anyone from the WMF will try to give an answer, because they have no case.

[mbz1]

Some very good answers posted so far. I don't think anyone from the WMF will try to give an answer, because they have no case.

Sure they responded. Brandon Harris, who is WMF employee, and two other poster kids of Wikipedia voted for this comment:

Mark Janssen, Dreamer-Pragmatist.
3 votes by Michael Fine, Brandon Harris, and Richard Symonds
While I appreciate the concern over children, I have to wonder is the world appropriate for kids? I mean, the world is 99% an "adult"-centered place. A child has more danger being hit and killed by a car crossing the street than being damaged by an image or article in Wikipedia.

Education is probably better than censorship, unless a opt-in filter is trivial enough to install. Otherwise the danger is that you create an "insulated garden" of a society that gives an incomplete (at best) or numb view of the world.Suggest Edits

BTW this comment is quite stupid. Nobody is arguing that a kid could get hit by a car in a big city, but what it has to do with exposing children to pornography at the site that should provide education. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Rhindle]

These Defenders of the Porn are just as bad as the right-wing Tea Baggers. Even something that rational people on both sides of the argument can agree with, image filtering, they have to stubbornly argue against it like it's going to ruin everything. How does an image filter prevent someone from getting access to their god-given right to all kinds of porn? Congratulations uncompromising porn defenders, you think just like the Tea Party!

[lilburne]

Mark Janssen, Dreamer-Pragmatist.
2 votes by Michael Fine and Brandon Harris
While I appreciate the concern over children, I have to wonder is the world appropriate for kids? I mean, the world is 99% an "adult"-centered place. A child has more danger being hit and killed by a car crossing the street than being damaged by an image or article in Wikipedia.

By the way, Sue Gardner has been made aware of all of this. I wonder if she's going to make some sort of statement?

That may be why WP employees are upvoting Janssen's comment.

[TungstenCarbide]

These Defenders of the Porn are just as bad as the right-wing Tea Baggers. Even something that rational people on both sides of the argument can agree with, image filtering, they have to stubbornly argue against it like it's going to ruin everything. How does an image filter prevent someone from getting access to their god-given right to all kinds of porn? Congratulations uncompromising porn defenders, you think just like the Tea Party!

Bingo! Hell fire and brimstone fundamentalist preachers in heat, thumping their chests in self-righteous over the sanctity of anti-censorship, and every six year old's god given right to study images of autofellatio.

[Peter Damian]

Mark Janssen, Dreamer-Pragmatist.
3 votes by Michael Fine, Brandon Harris, and Richard Symonds
While I appreciate the concern over children, I have to wonder is the world appropriate for kids? I mean, the world is 99% an "adult"-centered place. A child has more danger being hit and killed by a car crossing the street than being damaged by an image or article in Wikipedia.

Education is probably better than censorship, unless a opt-in filter is trivial enough to install. Otherwise the danger is that you create an "insulated garden" of a society that gives an incomplete (at best) or numb view of the world.Suggest Edits

BTW this comment is quite stupid. Nobody is arguing that a kid could get hit by a car in a big city, but what it has to do with exposing children to pornography at the site that should provide education. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

I nearly suggested adding some interesting books on autofellatio to our local primary school library. Also that they remove that silly steel gate outside the playground which creates a nasty 'insulated garden' that gives the 9 year olds such an incomplete view of the world. But then I thought puritans like Larry and the rest would have a go at me.

[Peter Damian]

Oh I see Richard Symonds, WMUK office manager has also voted approval of educating young children about pornography by showing it to them. Well done Richard. That reminds me I must reply to the Charity Commission this weekend. Boy I have some interesting stuff for them.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[jsalsman]

I'm interested in knowing what the evidence is that exposing children to sexually explicit material causes harm. It's not hard to find contrary evidence. I understand why it seems repugnant and why it might get school administrators and teachers in trouble, but I'm wondering if anyone has any empirical findings supporting the idea of harm.

[mbz1]

I'm interested in knowing what the evidence is that exposing children to sexually explicit material causes harm. It's not hard to find contrary evidence. I understand why it seems repugnant and why it might get school administrators and teachers in trouble, but I'm wondering if anyone has any empirical findings supporting the idea of harm.

What kind of evidences are you looking for?

[the fieryangel]

I'm interested in knowing what the evidence is that exposing children to sexually explicit material causes harm. It's not hard to find contrary evidence. I understand why it seems repugnant and why it might get school administrators and teachers in trouble, but I'm wondering if anyone has any empirical findings supporting the idea of harm.

Mainly because pedophiles themselves say that exposing children to this information is "educational".

So, are you a pedophile?

[EricBarbour]

I posted some comments on Quora, although frankly it's probably a waste of time.
Beaudette and Walling have all day long (and paychecks) to troll social-media sites, and I don't.

The more I see of those two, the more I dislike them.

Yes, Mr. Salsman, are you a pedophile?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[thekohser]

I'm interested in knowing what the evidence is that exposing children to sexually explicit material causes harm. It's not hard to find contrary evidence. I understand why it seems repugnant and why it might get school administrators and teachers in trouble, but I'm wondering if anyone has any empirical findings supporting the idea of harm.

Here you go:

http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139...0137-3/abstract

http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(09)60387-7/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10579105

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.473

[jsalsman]

Mr. Salsman, are you a pedophile?

No. Nor have I ever edited on any even vaguely related topic. But I'm completely convinced that the moral panic is completely unjustified. Here's why: kids exposed to porn are much more easily able to talk about sex with their parents, teachers, the police, etc. That's why kids exposed to porn have a far lower sexual assault victimization and perpetration rates, as has been repeatedly documented every time it has been studied. Maybe it's counter-intuitive but it's the same result over and over any time someone studies the question.

I'm interested in knowing what the evidence is that exposing children to sexually explicit material causes harm. It's not hard to find contrary evidence. I understand why it seems repugnant and why it might get school administrators and teachers in trouble, but I'm wondering if anyone has any empirical findings supporting the idea of harm.

Here you go:

http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139...0137-3/abstract

http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(09)60387-7/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10579105

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.473

Okay. The first is conjecture without any findings in its conclusions, and it's talking more about fiction TV and movies than anything you would be likely to find on Commons. ("The erotica under consideration are not so much those explicitly depicting coital behaviors as those that are less explicit and present a fuller social context of sexual engagements.")

The second is a review of "television and movies, rock music and music videos, advertising, video games, and computers and the Internet," which would be interesting in its finding that the, "primary effects of media exposure are increased violent and aggressive behavior, increased high-risk behaviors, including alcohol and tobacco use, and accelerated onset of sexual activity," were it not for their caveat that, "newer forms of media have not been adequately studied." And the risk of accelerated onset of sexual activity has not been observed with the availability of internet porn or Wikipedia -- just the opposite: "from 1988 through 2006–2010, the percentage of teenaged females who were sexually experienced declined significantly (from 51% in 1988 to 43% in 2006–2010)." Even greater number of males are waiting to have sex (Figure 1 on p. 6.) Frankly, I think this is because of the easily availability of internet porn (and Wikipedia is insignificant in the whole scheme of internet porn) and I will gladly elaborate for anyone who can't figure out for themselves why this might be. (Hint: search for "clopping".)

The third is a collection of anecdotes which claims "harm" in the title but only unquantified "risk" in its summary. It claims that conclusions can't be drawn from clinical data, which is absurd. There have been several longitudinal studies looking at exposure to pornography, but that's never been significant for any negative outcomes. Parental alcohol dependence and the mother's educational background are usually the most significant factors for the risks they claim.

The fourth says, "Concerns about a large group of young children exposing themselves to pornography on the Internet may be overstated." Yeah, that's about the size of it.

Does anyone else have any sources which counter the repeated results that easy availability to porn is associated with halving or better of child sex victimization rates?

[EricBarbour]

Does anyone else have any sources which counter the repeated results that easy availability to porn is associated with halving or better of child sex victimization rates?

I don't think either you or Greg have proven anything. It's easy to find studies that support one position or another, and it's just as easy to discount them.

Want some related items?
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html...olestation.html
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/...station-charges

The point that I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter what the studies say. The very idea of child
molesters approaching children, anywhere, is enough to send parents into berserk panic.

Wikimedia and its pathetic "community" are not handling the Mozhenkov flap, or the porn that is
provably on Commons, or even the "tolling bell" nonsense from last week, with anything resembling
adult responsibility and seriousness. Instead, they Wiki-lawyer and squabble and lie and misdirect
and cover up.

Mr. Salsman, I still don't understand why you're defending those people. They kicked you off their servers, like a common vandal.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Larry Sanger]

Clearly, there's a heavy burden on the part of the idiots who claim that children are not harmed by seeing pornography. I'm inclined to go with generations of sensible parents who absolutely require that their children be kept away from the stuff. The notion that you can do a study to determine the harm belies any comprehension of the matter, anyway. Parents keep their children away from porn because they don't want their children knowing about sex in that much detail, coming to wrong conclusions about it (oh, so that's what it looks like then?), and getting sexualized much too young. How do you do studies about these things? It's impossible, or very difficult, anyway. Seeing it at a young age may also well lead them to believe that pornography itself is morally acceptable, and many parents (especially mothers) are much concerned to nix that idea as much as they can.

This is not a matter of "moral panic." The more unhinged sort of libertarian--as opposed to principled ones, like myself--really do sound like idiots when they call any policy criticism from a moral point of view "moral panic."

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger: