[WikiEN-l] How much?

Wed Jan 14 16:33:04 UTC 2004

On Wednesday 14 January 2004 11:22 am, Peter Jaros wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2004, at 11:58 PM, Sascha Noyes wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 January 2004 06:16 pm, Delirium wrote:
> >> Sascha Noyes wrote:
> >>> In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it
> >
> > legitimate
> >
> >>> because I don't consider nudity offensive. (I have previously given
> >>> the
> >>> example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for
> >>> children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at
> >>> their
> >
> > own
> >
> >>> unclothed body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous.
> >>> (And a sad
> >>> reflection on the influence of religious fundamentalists on
> >>> societies the
> >>> world over.)
> >>
> >> Ah, but should we add some graphic photographs to [[anus]], [[feces]],
> >> and a variety of other subjects people perhaps wouldn't want to see
> >> images of?  After all, unless you're offended by your own bowel
> >> movements, you can't possibly find images of feces offensive, right?
> >
> > That is correct. I see my feces nearly every day, and recognise that
> > defecation is a normal and natural act. I am not in the least bit
> > offended by
> > the sight of feces. People study feces of animals to infer what they
> > ate,
> > etc. I don't find these people to be morally reprehensible characters
> > because
> > they are interested in feces. Similarly for anuses.
>
> How many anuses do *you* see per day?  I don't see any, myself.  Not
> even my own.  So what's so great about a picture of an anus?  Will it
> help you recognize one if you see it in the wild? :)
>
> It seems like a diagram, rather than a picture, would be much more
> informative, which is obviously the point.  And if we offend fewer
> people, so much the better.
>
> Peter

How many Lungs do *you* see per day? I don't see any, myself.  Not
even my own.  So, one might ask oneself: "What's so great about a picture of 
an Lung"?  "Will it help you recognize one if you see it in the wild"? :)

Actually, it will. ;-)

I think pictures add information. Not a great deal, mind you. But you could 
always attempt to argue that wikipedia should have no pictures, because the 
arguments you have presented against pictures of anuses applies equally to 
all other pictures. I doubt, however, that you will get very far. I share 
Erik's opinion that pictures should complement illustrations/diagrams. Again, 
the onus is on the part of the censors to justify the removal of encyclopedic 
knowledge from an encyclopedia.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
-- 
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from 
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc