[WikiEN-l] Re: Editorial decisions are not the same as censorship

Tue Mar 29 18:51:55 UTC 2005

Karl A. Krueger a écrit:
 > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:42:32AM -0800, Robert wrote:
 >
 >>Let me give an example: The English Wikipedia has an article on
 >>fertilization of an egg, pregnancy and giving birth.  But we do *not*
 >>have photographs of men having sex with women, impregnating them!
 >>That is an editorial decision, made for very good reasons.  The
 >>decision not to publish any given sex photograph is in no way, shape
 >>or form censorship.
 >
 >
 > I agree with you that this is not censorship.  However, your description
 > implies that we don't have such pictures at all.
 >
 > The articles on [[fertilization]], [[pregnancy]], and so forth all link
 > to [[Sexual intercourse]].  That article, as it so happens, starts out
 > with a photograph of two lions engaging in sexual intercourse, and goes
 > on to include line-drawings (but not lion-drawings) of people doing the
 > same.
 >
 > So no, we do not editorially exclude images of sexual conduct.  We -do-
 > place them on articles whose focus is sexual conduct, for instance
 > [[Sexual intercourse]], rather than on articles whose focus is the cell
 > biology of reproduction or the course of pregnancy.

I agree with RK it is a matter of editorial decisions, in great part 
based on taste and consideration to the way our readers will appreciate 
the content proposed.

Hmmmm... another side comment on the reproduction matter... as a 
pregnant woman trying to find information on all the different stages of 
developement, I find Wikipedia teribly lacking information.

Ant