All concerned parties, be advised of my article [[Peyronie disease]].
My view is that the Wikipedia should not contain pornography, but nudity
is okay. Some people may not be cool with the idea of looking at nudity,
but they have just as much right to not "Click here to see image
containing nudity" as they do to avoid other places where they'd see
nudity (Playboy, porno sites, etc.) Nudity is okay because it describes
how things really do look. Drawings should not be considered watered
down photos. They're good at showing some details that may not be
apparent in photographs. Photographs on the other hand, show reality. I
think both are perfectly acceptable. Understanding that certain people
are sensitive to seeing nudity, we should mask it behind a link. But we
are not making an encyclopedia specifically for grade schools, and we
are not making an encyclopedia for people who turn red at the site of
genitalia. Individuals need to exercise control of their viewing habits,
and schools and parents need to be aware of what children are surfing
to. That's just not our job.
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I don't think we should have an actual photograph
in this case. Just
think what would be acceptable in schools (actually, a lot of
wikipedia probably wouldn't be acceptable in schools, like its lack of
"drugs are evil" stance, but this is much worse). I don't think
photographs of genitalia belong in an encyclopedia, no matter how
informative. Drawings would be a much better alternative.
*/sannse <sannse(a)delphiforums.com>/* wrote:
If they are copyright free (which would surprise me) a couple of
them may be
better choices than John's version. The left side images on the
bottom two
rows are informative without having the same "porn-like" feel of
the earlier
images. As Anthere said, they would still need to be linked with a
warning
rather than immediately visible. Personally I would still prefer a
drawing,
mostly for aesthetic reasons but also because I believe a drawing
can be
more informative in some situations.