[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not censorship

Mon Feb 14 01:16:33 UTC 2005

Nicholas Knight said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> Nicholas Knight said:
>>
>>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>
>>>>I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users
>>>>should be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers,
>>>>not the producers of content.  http is not a push medium.
>>>
>>>And yet I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to browse
>>>an encyclopedia with images on and not run across disgusting crap that
>>>adds no value to the article whatsoever.
>>
>>
>> You should never encounter disgusting crap that adds no value to an
>> article.  If you find any, remove it.
>
> *points at [[Autofellatio]]*

When I inlined the autofellatio image on January 6th, I thought it
possible that a very large number of Wikipedia editors would think as you
do.  I did not expect it to remain inlined for long.  And yet, until Jimbo
removed it, the image proved very difficult to return to its linked form
(I myself never replaced it when it was removed--that would have been
interfering).
>From this, and the result of the Sannse's poll so far, it appears to me
that there has not been a consensus--or at least, not the kind of 2/3+
consensus we're used to on Wikipedia--that the image is so "disgusting"
and without redeeming merit.  Nobody was more surprised about this than I.
Aware that the actions of one of the opponents of inlining may have skewed
the poll by attracting the attention of people with anti-censorship views,
I asked for the poll deadline to be set some considerable time in the
future--in late March.  I believe this was in line with the poll on
[[Clitoris]].   The thinking was that the longer the poll went on the more
likely it would be that a representative sample of Wikipedians would have
the opportunity to consider the case and vote.  A few people thought there
should be no deadline, but most thought a deadline was better and, with
some dissenters, most seemed to be happy with the March 20 deadline I
proposed.
Someone originally proposed a 70% criterion for consensus, but later
changed his mind.  I still think 70% is reasonably low, but the 2/3 value
would probably also be acceptable to most people.
I think I can say I've tried very hard to do everything I can to favor a
representative survey.  It was publicised on current surveys and in
Villege Pump policy.
But still I do not see a consensus on the proposal that the picture has no
merit.  Even the proposal to link is just about scraping 60% support.
My opinion?  It's a lovely picture that illustrates the subject matter
beautifully.