Be heard on the issues that matter most to you!
A lot's gone down in the last year with Sex in the Public Square; I think that Elizabeth and I have accomplished even more than we originally expected to here so far with projects like the sex work forum, and the networking that we've done with people in the real world and all the discussion of news items. Looking at the site as a whole, I'm not only proud of what we've done, but outright amazed.
And there's still so much more that we can do. Recently, we came up with an idea to take us even further: a sex-positive wiki.
One of the things that made this seem like such a good idea to me was the surge of media coverage in the wake of the Spitzer scandal, and especially the Diane Sawyer 20/20 special, which repeatedly seemed to make a deliberate effort to snatch bullshit from the maw of truth.
We really do have an incredible collection of fiercely intelligent, independent people in what can loosely (VERY loosely) be called the sex-positive community. We have everything from dedicated activists working at clubs and agencies to scholars like Elizabeth, and I think that putting all those brains together to build a resource devoted to providing information about the intersections of sex and culture could produce a helluva powerfu and valuable site.
The question I usually get when pitching this idea at people is, "What about Wikipedia?" Wikipedia is a great resource. If the rest of the web was as useful as Wikipedia, I'd probably spend the other 10% of my life plugged into the internet as well. The Sexology and Sexuality Project on Wikipedia, among others, deserves praise for their work. But Wikipedia itself isn't specifically focused on sexuality, and a focus can be invaluable in attaining depth of insight into a topic. Also, Wikipedia is, by definition, open to just about any damn fool with a computer and an attitude. Most of the truly obvious lunatics get combed out by the collective efforts of the saner majority, but in working on volatile subjects like sex work or pornography, there are often polarized factions trying to get their viewpoint into the article. The Talk section of the Wikipedia pornography article has a lot of long arguments over the nature and appropriateness of various approaches to the subject. In short, it takes an effort just to be able to get to the starting line for sex-poz people. One of the benfits of having our own wiki would be that we're already at a comfortable starting point, where we can begin with the assumption, for instance, that sex work can be a legitimate occupation. Then from that point, we can move on to our our own internecine battles. We don't have to waste time explaining why prostitution and trafficking aren't necessarily the same thing.
Also, when the site goes up, it won't initially be as open as Wikipedia is. We want to start with people we know and trust until we build up a core of articles that will establish a philosophical and scholarly tone, along with a set of mutually accepted principles to guide creation of new articles.
We definitely know what a huge task we're setting for ourselves, here. In fact, it's huge, and we're not planning to do it all on our own. A wiki is by definition a collaborative effort, and we'd like to hear from other people on what they'd like to see in a wiki of this sort and any practical suggestions that people have from experience working on Wikipedia or other sites. We've already set up an installation of MediaWiki, and it's almost ready to go. In the meantime, feed us your thoughts on the idea, and feel free to bring us down to earth before we get all starry-eyed from contemplating our own brilliance and idealism.
__________________________
Blog: Literate Perversions
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
I'm glad to hear that you like the idea, Mojo. I'm all a-quiver myself, and have been playing with the software a lot to get a good grasp of how it works. Part of me is wondering what my brain has gone and gotten me into this time. Any input you have on what you'd like to see (or even more importantly, not see) in a sexuality wiki would be appreciated, especially since you've been so damn brilliant in the past.
Blog: Literate Perversions
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
LOVE the sex wiki plan. A thorough, informed, sex-positive internet resource -- an idea whose time has come! Go for it!
I like this idea, too, though I'm a big fan of the wikipedia (relatively) open submission and editing process. It would be interesting to see how a sex wiki works. I did come across this fetish wiki a while back...
http://en.smiki.org/Main_Page
RC McCloud also writes at The Safe Word
wanting a sex-related wiki that focuses on general sexuality, or one that is angled specifically toward the sex industry. I don't remember the link off the top of my head, but there is at least one already dedicated to sex in general. Maybe Wiki After Dark? Something like that.
I do think one focused on the sex industry and some of the more, higher-end concepts associated with sexuality in general is a good idea, though. I'd do whatever I could to support it.
Wiki After Dark is a how-to site, and that's SO not what I'm thinking of. The titles of their articles include "Give a man a blowjob," "Do 69," and "Suck a girl's nipples." I'd like to be a more educational and reference site that covers sexuality and gender issues in general, including articles on pornography, porn stars, sex work, HIV/AIDS, queer rights movements and activists, publications, and so on.
Blog: Literate Perversions
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
idea, but Wikipedia has a lot of that stuff already. How do you see what you're wanting to do as differentiating itself from that? Other than focusing specifically on sexuality? I mean, for example, you can find entries for just about any porn star you can think of; there are articles on HIV/AIDS, porn, etc. If you want to go to that effort, IMO, there needs to be some compelling distinction between what you can already find on Wikipedia and what you'd be producing, don't you think?
Well, I think I already covered that in my original post. Wikipedia is a great resource, but it's hampered in some respect by its breadth and by the openness of its editorial policy. People writing or editing sexual health articles, for example, can as likely be "abstinence only" advocates as people who are, shall we say, grounded in reality. If you look at the sex work article on Wikipedia, you can see that there have been great struggles to get the article as good as it is. One of the battles, I believe, even took place over the relevancy of the article at all and whether "sex worker" was just a fraudulent euphemism.
When you write articles at Wikipedia, you are not starting at a sex-positive position. You have to fight just to get to the starting line. I think that a reference work that begins with sex-positive assumptions, such as the legitimacy of sex work, can go much farther.
Blog: Literate Perversions
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
Hot damn, this is a fantastic idea! I've seen some excellent genre specific wiki's, and I think one for sex, especially from a sex positive perspective sounds totally awesome. I can't wait to see it started!
This is a fantastic idea. There are so many places that this kind of work can go and it can only be expanded by bringing people who are like-minded together to think and write in one giant space. I look forward to what everyone creates and hope to one day be able to participate!
I'm so glad to see all the enthusiasm for the sex commons wiki project. I can't express how glad I am to be working with someone as smart and creative as Chris. Chris has done a tremendous amount of work getting this project started and it's so affirming to read all these positive reactions. I think the Sex Commons Wiki is going to be an amazing resource, especially if some of you help us build it!
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Hot diggity, I found this site searching for "smart sex"; terms like sexuality, gender, "body positive", or "sex positive" were just not turning up anything new. Admittedly, the site is slightly familiar to me, but the idea of a sexuality wiki really grabbed my attention. I, too, am excited about this, and would absolutely love to have a chance to contribute.
I don't have morals. I have ethics.
I think that http://www.sfsi.org has been rumbling about doing a wiki for some time. Both for sex ed materials and sex info purposes coming from a non-judgmental but sex positive consensual perspective. I'll look into it and see if collaboration is possible with the organizers.
Update: SFSI.org is in wiki format already (I hadn't visited since we switched over cough cough) take a look and see what you like, I know the programmers and the board of directors (I'm engaged to one of them) and could certainly forward or facilitate requests or introductions.
Could I help in anyway?
Caroline, anyone with a sex-positive perspective and information to contribute can help! Head on over there (http://sexcommons.org) and start the account creation project if you want to contribute to articles. Or feel free to simply help us publicize it as it grows. We're glad to have all the sex-positive/sex-radical feminist support we can get!
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
I've been a Wikipedia article for several years, and am the primary author of several highly-rated articles, so I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia and how it works. And I'd add that the idea of a sex-positive wiki isn't appropriate for general Wikipedia for a reason that you haven't mentioned – the principle of Neutral Point of View, or NPOV for short. By its nature, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to take a stand that's pro-sex-positive or anti-sex-positive, pro-abstinence or anti-abstinence. If there is any kind of controversy or disagreement about a particular issue (like porn or prostitution), all sides of the issue are to be given equal weight. Wikipedia articles are also bound by the principle of "No Original Research", which means that that the editors own analysis and arguments are not allowed in the article – only arguments that are already found in citable, published sources can be given there. If you have an issue with a particular point of view given in an article and think it needs to be balance, it can only be balanced by reference to an already-published criticism, not your personal point of view.
A lot of people don't like this and avoid contributing to Wikipedia for this reason, but on the other hand, I think the idea, that it least in theory, if not always in practice, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be slanted toward any kind of partisan view to be one of its strengths. And, personally, I consider writing within those restrictions to be an interesting challenge, and one that really forces you to learn about points of view you don't necessarily agree with, and a lot about separating fact from opinion.
Nonetheless, I do think there's a lot of abuse on Wikipedia and lot of outright "point of view pushing" there, sometimes thinly concealed, sometimes not. And it seems like articles about sexuality issues often have particular problems with this. I'm actually involved in one of the more brutal disputes around an article, namely the Wikipedia article on Melissa Farley. You can read the talk page for the whole thing, but basically some prostitution abolitionist is attacking the article as "biased" because it happens to include information on the criticisms that have been made of Farley's research methods and views, and info on Farley's background as an anti-porn activist. (And, yes, the very use of the term "sex work" in this article came under attack as well.)Another problem article is an odd little article called "Adolescent Sexuality in the United States" which is packed with a disproportionate amount of dodgy pro-abstinence propaganda largely contributed by one problem editor. I've also found from these disputes how inadequate Wikipedia is in practice for putting the brakes on abusive editors.
But anyway, I think starting a sex-poz wiki is an excellent idea – POV wikis definitely have their place – there is already an anarchist wiki and a conservative one, for example. I'd love to contribute to a sex-poz one.
(Oh, and another aside, you mention the Sexology and Sexuality WikiProject – I also wanted to point out the Sex Work Task Force within that project that just got started. Some readers here might be interested.)
If we are here, it says that we have a positive attitude about sex and sexuality. That works to begin a core data/information set and bias the information in a positive direction.
The question I ask is in regard to the mis-information available at the click of a mouse. The net is rife with information running the gamut from inaccurate to out right falsehood. How does a sex wiki ensure the articles and information are reliable and accurate?
If that can be done, I'm in love with the idea and will offer what ever knowledge a person who has known sex from every aspect from the expression of love to sex as a client to sex as an occupation (Okay, a side job, but I enjoyed myself and got paid too.)
As with any public forum the misinformation available far exceeds the accurate information available, however the controls available in a wiki give the tools for weeding out intentional instigators and correcting inaccuracies that come to light. Giving privileges as earned to editors and contributors is the basis for an accurate wiki.
For instance a first time contributor might have their contribution vetted by an editor before being published
An inaccuracy or simple misspelling can be corrected by the contributor or an editor.
A biased or inaccurate piece can be removed or corrected by an editor.
etc.
