Previous by DateNext by Date Date Index
Previous by ThreadNext by Thread Thread Index
LM_NET Archive



I thought I had sent this, and I might have. But I was closing windows 
and found this message.

The relatively recent post I made related to overriding filters 
stimulated even more interesting dialog on the EdTech list - which has 
some ed tech directors who think they must remain "in charge." But also 
this stimulated some actions by a guy, Larry Sanger, on that list who 
apparently was involved in the formation of Wikipedia. Apparently 
Wikipedia has not had good standards related to pornographic material. 
Larry's actions have now raised that issue - and Wikipedia responded by 
changing its policies. But it is still Larry's opinion, also the opinion 
of some others, that Wikipedia should be blocked. Here is what he wrote 
and a relatively extensive reply from me. This might be a helpful 
resource for you if this controversy results in an effort to block 
Wikipedia in your district.

Nancy
> From: Larry Sanger <sanger-lists@citizendium.org>
>
> Many of you may know about the recent hullabaloo regarding pornography 
> on Wikipedia, which has blown up in the last few days into 
> international news:
> http://news.google.com/news/search?q=Wikipedia+porn
> Some of the more interesting stories are these:
> BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm
> FoxNews.com: http://is.gd/c4yoR
> UPI: http://is.gd/c4ynU 
> I have a question: are there any school district technical directors 
> who formerly allowed unrestricted access to wikipedia.org and 
> wikimedia.org (the latter hosts Commons), but who now do not? And are 
> there any who take a stand against "censorship" and who continue to 
> allow unrestricted access to Wikipedia.org and Wikimedia.org 
> (including Commons)?
> . . . I'm not really trying to play "gotcha," Nancy, I'm really 
> interested in your views on this. 
I think he is trying to play "gotcha" actually. But 2 can play that 
game. Here is my response:

Larry Sanger asked me about my opinion on Wikipedia now. Interestingly, 
David Hoffman recently sent me a link to an article I wrote in 2003 
about filtering.

<http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/oct03/dcon1003.shtml> Wherein I stated:
> Above all, schools should not simply think that the filtering system 
> is working effectively without collecting and reviewing data related 
> to blocking and the override process. The unfortunate impact of the 
> news stories of the Supreme Court ruling is the continued public 
> misrepresentation that filtering will protect younger children and 
> prevent teens from accessing inappropriate material.
>
> This decision is "a crushing defeat for the nation's 16-year-old 
> boys," stated the editorial of The Wall Street Journal in response to 
> the ruling. Well, this nation's 16-year-old boys are ROFL (rolling on 
> the floor laughing) at adults who think that filtering software will 
> prevent them from accessing Internet pornography.
>
> Unfortunately, while the vast majority of schools have installed 
> filtering, far fewer have a comprehensive educational program to 
> prepare students with the knowledge and skills necessary for them to 
> make safe and responsible choices when using the Internet.

I have been consistent in my view of filtering for many years. Another 
early document is here: <http://csriu.org/documents/nwnas.php> This was 
my testimony for the National Research Council - for their report on 
filtering - 2000. So at the risk of repeating myself:

> Regardless of issues related to the use, effectiveness, and 
> appropriateness of technology tools, laws, and labeling systems, the 
> simple and plain truth is that virtually every young person in this 
> country will, at one time or another, have unsupervised access to the 
> Internet through an unfiltered and unmonitored system. Any young 
> person who desires to access the ""darkside" of the Internet will be 
> able to find a way to do so. Technology tools, laws, and labeling 
> systems are insufficient means to prevent such access.
>
> The more important question, therefore, is how can we help young 
> people gain the knowledge, decision-making skills, and motivation to 
> make safe and responsible choices when they are using the Internet.
Lastly, I would point out this article: 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR2010051105154.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead>
 

> The State Department has decided to fund a group run mainly by 
> practitioners of Falun Gong, a Buddhist-like sect long considered 
> Enemy No. 1 by the Chinese government, to provide software to skirt 
> Internet censorship across the globe.

Larry, I do appreciate your work in raising these concerns and pushing 
the Wikipedia folks into a more appropriate level of responsible 
behavior. I was involved in a similar battle in the early 90's - but 
lost. I had started an effort to launch a community network that would 
provide Internet access. This was before such access was readily 
available. I started a non-profit, filed a 501C3, brought a bunch of 
people on the board, wrote a business plan, and raised $30,000. My 
vision was using these technologies in ways to support our community. 
Some guys on the board already had an under-the-cover UUCP connection to 
the Internet through the U of O. They wanted to use the money I raised 
to buy a larger server so they could better host the newsgroups - 
including the very data intensive alt.sex newsgroups. I protested - and 
was kicked out of the project because I support "censorship."

So my views in a nutshell:

Filtering is not effective in preventing access to objectionable 
material. Students can easily make mistakes and end up accidentally 
accessing the wrong kinds of sites. Every teen can easily find out how 
to bypass the filter. Do a search for "bypass Internet filter." There 
are even YouTube instruction videos.

Filtering can provide an effective warning - that is, if the filter 
blocks a site there may be a reason not to access this site. But filters 
also overblock or can block based on unconstitutional bias. So it is 
essential, based on the US Supreme Court decision in CIPA, to have an 
effective and rapid process to provide an override process. Most 
districts do not have an effective override process.

The false security that comes from overreliance on filtering has 
resulted in many inappropriate outcomes: Schools think that filters are 
preventing misuse and do have clear policies that insist on 
instructional use of the Internet and do not regularly assess traffic - 
if they did they would see that many students and teachers are simply 
using the Internet for "Internet recess." Schools have not set up safer 
places for younger students - elementary schools should have more focus 
on "whitelisting" appropriate sites. Schools have not set up effective 
supervision and technical monitoring approaches to ensure that secondary 
students (and staff) are engaging in appropriate online activities. 
Schools are not teaching students how to avoid accidentally accessing 
inappropriate material.

On this last point, the Crimes Against Children Research Center 
reported, based on 2006 data, that 42% of youth Internet users had been 
exposed to online pornography in the past year. Of those, 66% reported 
only unwanted exposure. And if you look closely at how the unwanted 
exposure occurred it is clear that if they had been taught how to avoid 
accidental access, many of these incidents could have been avoided 
through more effective instruction.

So as for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a microcosm of the Internet - lots of 
good stuff, unfortunately some bad stuff. Just like the Internet, if you 
exercise care in searching you can easily avoid most of the bad stuff. 
Just like the Internet, accidental access will happen even if you are 
careful. Just like the Internet, you can intentionally find the bad 
stuff. So if you want to make the argument that schools should ban 
Wikipedia because there is material that a student could find on 
Wikipedia that is inappropriate, then the exact same argument should 
hold for all of the Internet. Because, just like Wikipedia, if you let 
students search on the Internet, they can accidentally or intentionally 
access material you do not want them to access.

I rather suspect the opinions of some who are involved in Wikipedia were 
similar to those on the board of the community network I started - 
censorship is bad. The more mature approach, which appears to be where 
Wikipedia is headed now thanks to your actions, is a recognition that 
more civilized and enlightened thinking does indeed draw the lines 
around what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate" in certain environments 
more closely. And in fact, there is no such thing as total free speech - 
even under our constitution. There have always been two rationales for 
restricting speech - that the speech is entirely contrary to the public 
good and thus should be restricted based on time and place or banned 
outright - and that the speech of one could harm another.

On the whole, I think Wikipedia provides a wealth of excellent resources 
and has set in motion the collaborative information generation process 
that is actually the essence of the new digital world. Yes, that 
information can be wrong or biased. Just like the textbooks that will be 
developed for Texas. So it is essential that all teachers and students 
gain much greater skills in assessing the credibility of information 
found online - with teacher librarians leading the way. But I actually 
believe that through the collaborative information generation process, 
more accurate information will eventually be presented - because the 
collaborative process can more effectively undermine the efforts of 
those who seek to exert editorial control based on bias and other 
objectives.

So basically, my opinion is that anyone who argues that students should 
be prevented from accessing Wikipedia in school is essentially arguing 
that students should not gain the skills and understanding necessary to 
be successful in the 21st century.

All best.

Nancy

-- 
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
http://csriu.org
nwillard@csriu.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
  You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
  by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, you send a message to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER:
1) SIGNOFF LM_NET
2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL
4) SET LM_NET DIGEST

 * To contact an LM_NET Moderator:  LM_NET-request@listserv.syr.edu
 * LM_NET Help & Information: http://lmnet.wordpress.com/
 * LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
 * EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://lm-net.info/join.html
 * LM_NET Supporters: http://lmnet.wordpress.com/category/links/el-announce/
 * LM_NET Wiki: http://lmnet.wikispaces.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------

LM_NET Mailing List Home