[WikiEN-l] Unnecessary nudity on [[Hogtie bondage]]

Mon Oct 24 11:18:15 UTC 2005

Here we go again, will this dead bloodily beaten horse ever decompose?

> First, I'd like to state that, in general, I support Wikipedia being
> explicit in its illustration where necessary. I have never had a
> problem with potentially-offensive photos on pages like [[penis]],
> [[clitoris]] and the like.

You have never had a problem with from an American viewpoint
potentially-offensive images? OK. I have never had a problem with
potentially-offensive photos (and text!) on pages like [[female]],
[[hair]], [[feet]], [[homosexual]], etc... By saying that only
[[penis]] and [[clitoris]] are potentially offensive but not the other
examples I mentioned, you are implying that your viewpoint is the
supreme one and more important than all others.

> However, to balance that, I think that content which is likely to be
> offensive, such as nudity, should be used only when there is a
> compelling case that the offensiveness is unavoidable if the article
> is to be illustrated properly. I would oppose photographs of nude
> people kissing in [[kiss]], or two nude people hugging in [[physical
> intimacy]], because I believe these concepts can be quite adequately
> illustrated without nudity. I don't suppose this is a particulary

I think it is. Just because you (and you are not alone, but I bet you
are not the majority either) think nudity is offensive is not a reason
to exclude it. Also, nudity (or atleast very few clothes) is an
important part of [[physical intimacy]] because most people are
undressed when they are doing it. Woman can be quite adequately
illustrated without either feet, fingers or hair. I don't think that
is a reason to butcher a huge number of images in Wikipedia.

> Recently, a proprietor of a bondage pornography site uploaded a number
> of his images to Wikipedia depicting a woman in various positions of
> sexual bondage, and added them as illustration to several pages,
> including (what has now been split off to become) [[Hogtie
> bondage]]. Two of these photographs used on [[Hogtie bondage]] feature
> a nude woman. However, I don't believe that nudity is necessary to

Once again you think. I don't know very much about [[Hogtie bondage]]
(and I can't read up on it ATM, because I'm at work and I'm fully
aware that Wikipedia is not work safe) but I assume that it has
something to do with SEX, hasn't it?

> In general, I think we should be very careful when dealing with
> erotica within Wikipedia. The original purpose of such images is not
> illustration, so we need to be sure that they do indeed make for good
> illustration when used as such. In the hogtie case, the owner of the
> adult website likely had the partial motive of promoting his website

So what? Jimbo himself has done that too. Atleast a few of the
"raunchy" images on Wikipedia has a description that reads something
like "(c) Bomis.inc, licensed as FDL". I don't understand the law that
says that when smut-peddlers donate images it is bad, but when other
corporations does it, it is good.

> (a link was included in the image description pages). And many people
> readily enjoy seeing titillating images in web pages, regardless of
> their illustrative value. So I think it's worth making sure there is a
> robust case for their use, given the potential for offense, because we
> decrease the value of Wikipedia if we are offensive without good
> editorial reasons.

Noone has suggest that we should be offensive for no good reason.
However, what has been common practice so far, is that editorial
decisions and an images educational value always and unconditionally
trumps (what many of us Westerners percieve as) offensiveness.

--
mvh Björn