--- Christiaan Briggs <christiaan(a)last-straw.net>
wrote:
I'm intrigued by the efforts to label this an
issue
of editorial
control. That presumes an extremely narrow
definition of the word
censorship and seems wholly disingenuous to me.
Still no one has attempted a rational response to my
question to
Jimbo...
What is it about a picture of a man performing
autofellatio in an
article about autofellatio that makes it
"pornographic"?
At the end of the day this is about censoring images
for the sake of
the prudish and the squeamish, whether it be that of
an individual,
organisation or on behalf of a sub-culture.
We can debate until the cows come home but we're
never going to reach
agreement on the points as they're being argued
because this isn't so
much a debate about whether an image is appropriate
or not but a debate
about which world view will prevail on Wikipedia:
one that attempts to
self-censor on the grounds of prudery and
squeamishness, or one that
doesn't.
The beauty is we don't have to come to an agreement;
many of us have
been able to agree to a technical solution that
skirts around the whole
issue and leaves censorship up to the enduser. So
why we're still
debating instead of implementing the idea I'm not
entirely sure.
Christiaan
If you really want to look at it that way then every
time you've reverted someone, or deleted a single
letter in an edit, you have censored.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo