[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 19, Issue 87

Wed Feb 16 18:17:34 UTC 2005

> From: "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger at whoi.edu>
> 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]].  ...
> 
> 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.
> 
I agree - however, the argument here is being made that linking to a
image that is beyond the bounds is NPOV despite the voting and actions
by Jimbo.

> > 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".
> 
I think if we are reasonable in the inclusion of images such that they
meet an stardard of providing educational or instructional information
- over time, such objectsions would be overcome, and wikipedia would
become an exception to such blocks - just as full volumes of
encylopedias are available at every school library even though they
contain articles on things labeled "indecent" and responsible parents,
like me (I have 4 children) would fight for the right of wikipedia to
be included in schools against those would ban it based on a few
articles (its value outweighing the risk). However, by including
images like those discussed here, I can't even make that argument to
myself.

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

I think it could - especially as censorware controls become more
finely tunable (if that is such a word).

> 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.
> 
But offense to a great number of people is good critera for deciding
whether something could be included as a link or inline.

Images are much more powerful communicators than text. To include
graphic images that provide no educational or encyclopedic content and
would offend most people in the article without a link or warning
would be IMHO foolish. And to provide it through the link should
satisfy (but for some reason doesn't) those that want to claim
censorship and NPOV.

Jim
-- 
Jim (trodel at gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]