On Tuesday, February 15, 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There are some excruciatingly naive arguments
being made on the essay's
talk page, e.g.:
Is this the sort of thing that would benefit from public pillory? For
example, a posting on Geek Feminism blog or elsewhere? On one hand, I
think such attitudes merit public critique, on the other, I wouldn't want
such efforts to backfire and make Wikipedia even less appealing to
possible contributors, particularly if this is just a rat hole.
A ham-handed approach is sure to set us back. Some quite "nasty" images
are very informative; most images with sexual content are kind of like
window-dressing, prosaic and repetitive. There are good arguments for
including some explicit images, but not for endless cruft.
The "no-censorship" crowd will predictably take the position that any
restrictions will involve removal of illustrations of explicit, but
significant information.
Fred