[WikiEN-l] request to Jimbo for out-of-process deletion of image

Wed Apr 5 06:40:14 UTC 2006

On 4/4/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> Revulsive as it is, I fail to see how making an ink drawing violates
> anyone's rights. The reason child pornography is illegal isn't
> because it's sick, it's because it can't be produced without sexually
> assaulting children, and sexually assaulting children is wrong (as is
> financially supporting such assaults).
>
> Cartoons don't necessarily involve assault. They're just revolting.

Simulated child porn (involving photoshop etc) can be illegal, too.
The basic argument goes along the lines of it making the line of
acceptable/unacceptable blurrier, people could end up thinking child
abuse is acceptable etc etc.

All of which is irrelevant to WP - we shouldn't have anything vaguely
resembling child porn because it makes us look really bad, which gets
in the way of our mission. People were willing to argue at length for
the inclusion of one image over another, claiming that the
encyclopaedia was suffering. Whereas they could have just been working
on some other article.

Steve