Robert wrote:
In any case, our encyclopedia is useless if people
refuse
to read it...and thousands of schools will ban its use if
it continues to offer pornographic images (and eventually,
videos.) What good is our work if few people can access
it? Even if it is not officially banned by entire schools,
many teachers will tell their students that Wikipedia is
not reliable or professional if we continue this course of
extreme sexual explicitness.
Jimbo himself has said that one of his dreams is to have a copy of
Wikipedia on the desk of every schoolchild in Africa. That won't
happen whilst Wikipedia is being used as a repository for images
which those schoolchildrens' teachers will view as pornographic. It
is perfectly possible to present matter-of-fact information about
such articles by the use of description and, if need be, a simple
line drawing.
I'm sure there must be enough talented artists contributing to WP
who would be more than capable of producing such an image (if indeed
one is *really* needed, which in the case of [[Autofellatio]] I
would disagree) specifically for WP.
Personally I think people ought to be bearing in mind that WP is
*not* a sex manual and as such, perhaps it out to be rethought as to
exactly how explicit such articles should be in the first place.
regards,
Arkady