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

Tue Feb 15 01:14:24 UTC 2005

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Delirium said:
> 
>> Having no images would
>>make it a  crappy encyclopedia.  Having so many unpleasant images
>>sprinkled through  it that every article on medical procedures or
>>disasters or accidents or  anything else potentially related is
>>completely unreadable also would  make it a crappy encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> Yes, we must get it right.  But there are no intrinsically unpleasant
> images, just ones that are useful in an article and ones that are not. 
> I've already explained why I think autofellatio is an excellent case of an
> article that needs a photographic illustration.  We should be able to
> display that illustration without apologising, and it really would help if
> people would learn how to operate their web browsers.

_I KNOW HOW TO OPERATE MY WEB BROWSER!_ I shouldn't have to make five 
mouse clicks (or two keystrokes and three mouse clicks at most 
efficient) to avoid seeing this crap in a general-purpose encyclopedia.

You want to inline it in an article in a medical encyclopedia? That's 
fine, go ahead, but _this is not a medical encyclopedia_.