[WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

Wed Feb 16 17:20:00 UTC 2005

On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 11:09:16AM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
> 1) The assumption that adults would not be offended by seeing this
> photo inline is naive - just because I want to learn about something
> doesn't mean I want to see it performed (whether that be autofellatio
> or beheadings or whatever) - in fact IMHO wanting to learn about
> something by going to an encylopedia should imply that a scholarly or
> educational view of the subject is desired - for a Mass Media
> interpretation - one would just use google (or their favorite search
> engine). And if one really wanted to see it - use an image search.

Who is assuming that adults would not, or should not, be offended?  I
expect that adults will be offended by many things they see and read on
Wikipedia.  Thankfully, offense has never killed anyone, and mentally
healthy human beings are capable of functioning reasonably happily
whilst being aware that there exist many, many things in the world which
offend them.

For what it's worth, I don't think this fuss is really about
autofellatio, any more than it was about clitorises (clitorides?) when
the fuss was over the article [[Clitoris]].  Badly-chosen images are
easily replaced within the normal Wikipedia editing process, and the
abuse of Wikipedia to troll with "shock-site" images is readily defeated
within that process as well, as you can see in action on the talk page
[[Talk:Goatse.cx]].

Rather, the issue here seems to me to be whether Wikipedia needs some
kind of rules under which people's work will be deleted or hidden away
on the grounds of being "offensive".  I hold that it does not; indeed,
that such rules would harm the project.  Existing ad-hoc practices work
just fine for selecting the work that should be included, on the basis
of accuracy, style, neutrality, copyright, and other such rules.

> 2) Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type.
> I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at
> my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the
> word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them
> at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may
> have wanted one).

In holding that students should have access (presumably via Wikipedia)
to definitions and descriptions of fellatio, you've already placed this
ideal of Wikipedia where it would be blocked by censorware and other
processes that seek to "protect" children from "indecency".

The presence or absence of images would not, then, control whether
Wikipedia were accessible to those students.

> ==QUESTION==
> Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material
> offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a
> link" not considered a reasonable?

Offense is not a good criterion on which to judge whether material
should be presented in an encyclopedia.  If it were, we would be unable
to cover adequately any number of subjects which offend people.

Luckily for the easily-offended, many of the images (and pieces of text)
which they deem the most egregious examples of "offensive" content also
fail good criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  And, on those
grounds, those materials already do get replaced or removed in the
normal process of Wikipedia editing.

The current images on [[Clitoris]], for instance, seem to strike many
people as "less offensive" than the ones which started the brouhaha
there.  However, the replacement was justifiable based on encyclopedic
standards rather than solely on standards of offense which would have
led to the eradication of any images there.

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>