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

Mon Feb 14 03:02:37 UTC 2005

Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
>> Nicholas Knight:
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong with "an encyclopedia" having such a 
>> blanket policy, either.  On the other hand, I do have a problem with 
>> the idea that my favorite encyclopedia might suddenly become less 
>> informative due to strict implementation of a policy enforcing 
>> cultural taboos that 
> 
> 
> I'm the last person to be substantially influenced by cultural taboos. I 
> just don't want to see a picture of a guy sucking himself off.

In that case, then, it seems you're just trying to enforce a personal 
preference.  That's far worse, in my estimation.

In any case, I have to wonder why you don't want to see it, but do want 
to read about it.

> 
>> interfere with the ability to provide useful, factual, relevant 
> 
> 
> _*How is the image useful*_?

I didn't say it was.  I don't really know whether it's useful.  I 
haven't made any particular judgment.  Applying blanket policies like 
you seem to advocate, however, would certainly end up disqualifying a 
great many images that WOULD be "useful".

> 
>> information.  As such, I don't think I can in good conscience support 
>> such a policy for Wikipedia.  One of the problems with "blanket" 
>> policies like that is that they tend to cover good things as well as bad.
> 
> 
> Can you give me a single example of a case where a PHOTOGRAPH of a 
> sexual act is meaningfully more useful than a line drawing?

Sure.  What about a case where something graphically illustrative is 
needed, no line drawing is available to the person posting the article, 
and he or she either hasn't the skill to draw one or access to the 
technology to make it available online?

Besides . . . I don't understand how a photograph is necessarily more 
offensive than a drawing.  For one thing, it's often more difficult to 
accurately render informative or otherwise useful detail with a pencil 
than with a camera, and for another, a line drawing can be far clearer 
(and thus more evocative) than a photograph at times.

> 
>> If it's pertinent and not gratuitous, I don't tend to have a problem 
> 
> 
> It IS gratuitious.

I was speaking in the generic.  Whether or not this particular image is 
gratuitous isn't something I'm going to argue right now.  You made 
references to making policy, and that is what I addressed.

> 
>> with it.  In cases where a substantial demographic does, it might be 
>> reasonable to move it off-page without removing it entirely, if some 
>> simpler visitor-controlled mechanism for "censoring" the visible 
>> content is not available.
>>
>> Don't fool yourself, though -- claiming that something is "indecent" 
> 
> 
> I never said anything was indecent. I said it was crap.

Sheer, unadulterated opinion, then.  That's not even a reasonable 
facsimile of the same possible usefulness of a philosophical statement 
about indecency.

> 
>> just because it's graphic is a matter of personal perspective, not of 
>> absolutist principles.
> 
> 
> Most people do not want to see photographs of explicit sex acts when 
> browsing an encyclopedia. Given the lack of educational value such 
> images have, I see no reason to drive those people, including me, off 
> with such images.

Most people don't want to have to exercise to stay in shape, either. 
That's hardly a relevant argument, unless you also think that "most 
people agree that redheads are better in bed" is justification for 
making statements to that effect in an encyclopedia.

Your statements to the effect that there's nothing wrong with a blanket 
policy of blocking any and all sexually explicit photos indicate that by 
"such images" you mean "sexually explicit" images.  Based on that, I can 
only assume you believe that there's no credible possibility of 
educational value in any "sexually explicit" image.  That being the 
case, I have to disagree, but if you can't figure out why for yourself I 
don't think there's any point in trying to explain it to you.

--
Chad