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

Fri May 15 07:53:32 UTC 2009

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:

>>
>> The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how 
>> to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply 
>> _difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find 
>> objectionable.
>>
>>
>>     
...
>> Generally sexual imagery is the prime target since it's the biggest 
>> hot-button "save the children" issue for most people -- many parents 
>> wouldn't be happy to have their kid read "list of sexual positions" but 
>> would rather they read the text than see the pictures, even if they're 
>> drawings.
>>
>>
>> Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this 
>> (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for 
>> requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently 
>> misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct 
>> resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which 
>> multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely 
>> to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.
>>
>>     

Do you have no shame?

Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?

We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?

A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to
wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned
was because he couldn't speak the queens english
properly. Really!

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen