[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Thu May 14 18:58:33 UTC 2009

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/5/14 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>> 2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>
>>> So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
>>> the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
>>> it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces
>>> aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question entirely and the
>>> answer should not be based on people being offended by images of them.
>
>> Yes. Editing is censoring, therefore there is no such separate thing
>> as censoring, therefore the decision to put a picture on
>> [[Autofellatio]] (WARNING: contains photograph) is an editorial
>> decision. Which it in fact was.
>
>
> Hit "send" too soon - The point is that "disgusting" or "potentially
> morally corrupting" or "sacreligious" have consistently been roundly
> rejected as editorial criteria. So it doesn't matter if someone tries
> to argue that editing is censorship, their editorial urge to do
> something others would call censoring has *still* consistently been
> roundly rejected.
>
> As I said, the most likely way to get such an effort off the ground is
> for someone to put together a filtered selection outside the live
> working wiki.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors
and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages.

A simple "this image may be inappropriate (show/show all from now on)"
button would go a long way and would be ridiculously easy to implement.
The hard part is convincing enwiki that they're not always right.

-Chad