I think I can safely say that we have moved past "emerging" into the digital age and are full fledged in it. Whereas last year we heard repeated gasps as print media shuttered one after the other, this year, digital shells of their former selves are now not so surprising. The FTC and FDA have adopted guidelines to be put into place for digital media, and more and more broadcast media are incorporating blogs and online news outlets into their segments. So is it fair to say that consumer fed news sources and informational sites, like Wikipedia, should be just as accountable for accuracy, factual and appropriate content as their television counterparts?
Just last month Fox News reported that former Wikimedia Commons Co-Founder, Larry Sanger, sent a letter to the FBI asking it to investigate Wikimedia's pornographic images in it's pedophillia and lolicon categories. While I think Fox News' title "Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn" is a little extreme (surprise surprise), I do think the story has some merit in the arena of accountability.
While I certainly don't consider Wikipedia to be intentionally distributing child porn, I do think that there are just some things that are common sense. Would we expect depictions of sex acts and child porn in a print encyclopedia? Survey says: no. Jimmy Wales was justified when attempting to edit the pictures associated with those Wikipedia pages without the consent of the other Wiki editors. After all, the site is his brainchild, shouldn't he have the right to have final say on what can be published and what is not? In the end, isn't it he that we would hold accountable for what is viewed on Wikipedia? And who felt these images were even appropriate in the first place?
Which again begs the question, should sites that are touted to be serious news and information sites continue to be fed by the general public who can manipulate content such as on Wikipedia? What do you think?
Posted by Shannon Nelson on May 21, 2010 2:05 PM
| Permalink
