--- On Mon, 14/2/11, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Herostratus/Hardco…
He has now asked for mediation.
Although I agree with the position taken in the essay, and,
indeed, would
go much further, I doubt this is the issue to lead on. It
has done me no
good.
I don't think so far it has done anyone any good who has tried to argue for
a more mature attitude towards pornographic content, Jimbo and Herostratus
included. Or for an attitude towards this content that more closely matches
that employed by what we call reliable sources. Yet it is an issue that cannot
be bypassed. Once a more mature community consensus on this issue is reached,
a lot of other things will fall into place. It is a key issue, and an
emblematic reflection of the present community demographics which we are
hoping to change.
That said, it should be possible to resurrect the
essay in
the Wikipedia
namespace if others are motivated to do so, and the
author's WP:OWN
issues are dealt with.
Herostratus makes the point that --
"Look, the Britannica doesn't host porn. Are they 'censored'? Of course
not.
They are exercising editoral judgement. I think it'd be silly to say 'The
Britannica is censored'. The Great Chinese Encyclopedia (or whatever they
have) is censored, and that's totally different."
It is a sensible point, yet is always greeted with a chorus of "Wikipedia is
not censored."
To be clear: Wikipedia is not Britannica, and we will cover and illustrate
topics, including sexual topics, that Britannica does not. I am not saying
that Wikipedia must not have nudity in an article like hogtie bondage, or
that Commons must not have creampie images. Reliably published sex manuals
etc. have similar images. But we should not blaze a trail on Wikipedia's
pages that is way beyond mainstream publishing. We make a policy commitment
not to go beyond the standards of reliable sources in our texts, and we
should do the same for illustrations in Wikipedia.
The fact is that our present community standards in this and other areas
are not defined by sources, but by single young males' interests. The
bias of these standards relative to the real-world mainstream is very
obvious in this area (especially so in Commons). Not challenging these
standards where they clearly depart from mainstream publishing feeds an
unreflected sense of entitlement masquerading as self-congratulatory
liberalism. We need more reflection, not less.
I understand the reluctance of women, and the silent majority (if indeed
there is such a silent "majority"), to get involved in this area, because
it will get nasty. But it's a nettle that has to be grasped before things
will get better.
YMMV.
Andreas