Robert wrote:
I just checked for myself - there are millions of
explicit sex images
available on the web, easily found on
images.google.com. No
censorship is occuring.
Well no one is seriously suggesting that censorship of that other
Wikipedia is occurring here.
Christiaan writes:
this is essentially what the argument boils down
to. To treat such
pictures differently is a cultural
statement in itself about that picture. This debate is not so much
about what constitutes an appropriate image but which cultural point
of view will prevail on Wikipedia. It's one of those issues where
True, but is our task to show pornography in the name of freedom of
speech or open culture?
I think our task is to spread and promote knowledge within the realms
of the law. If we can promote and spread knowledge about a sexually
explicit act and tell a thousand words with a picture then we should.
To hide or
remove such an image is a statement. To keep such an image
inline or linked is a statement.
Yes - and our statement is "This is an encyclopedia, not Hustler
magazine."
But this is hyperbole. We're talking about autofellatio here, not the
implementation of a Wikipedia centerfold.
How about "This is an encyclopedia and we don't see the human body as a
vessel of sin and shame, we don't have issues with the human body and
what it is capable of, and we don't intend to promote the concept of
bodily shame and sin through censorship. If other institutions want to
censor content down stream that is their prerogative."
If someone wants to view explicit images and videos of
sexual acts ...
there are thousands of outlets for just such things. But presumably
people come to Wikipedia to read a professional academic article.
So what is it that makes an image of a sexually explicit act in an
article about a sexually explicit act unprofessional? Why send a person
who has come to educate themselves about autofellatio away from the
site to view an image when we could show it to them ourselves. We might
as well send them away to read about it too.
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.
But there are technical solutions to these minor problems.
Do not get me wrong: We need not censor ourselves by
adopting the
least offensive text and images - that would be impossible. Somebody
will find everything about sex offensive. But we also do not have to
go to the other extreme by shoving in what is essentially pornography.
The problem is defining pornography, and this has much to do with
context. Many people find any image of sex pornographic. I certainly
don't find the controversial image pornographic in the context that it
is in.
An educated adult should be able to professionally
write about human
sexual practices without being coarse, and without showing photographs
of men sucking themselves off.
But this exactly what we are trying to describe and an image, as they
say, tells a thousand words. To tell you the truth I think a better
image in this case would be one where the man gets much of his penis in
his mouth.
Christiaan