This will always be an issue for Wikipedia because there will always be
places where cultural differences make it difficult for people to find
consensus.
This shows up most prominently with photos, I think, because with text
we have a great deal more flexibility in terms of working together to
write the text in a way that is satisfactory to a wide audience.
The question has arisen here: what positive arguments can be given for
the inclusion of nudity in Wikipedia articles? I think this is an
important question and it deserves a proper answer. Or, I should say
"it deserves proper answers" because they answers are many and vary
according to the particular case.
Consider as an example articles about human sexuality, including
articles about sexually transmitted diseases. Such articles more or
less require illustration for completeness. This does not mean that the
illustrations should be done in "porn movie" style -- the problem of
tastefully and accurately representing medical/sexual information is an
old one which is solved by textbooks on the subject. I think that the
current (well, last time I checked) illustration on [[:en:Clitoris]] is
a fine example -- it is accurate, clear, tasteful and "looks like" a
textbook illustration rather than a bad porn movie.
Consider, too, articles about great works of art from the past, works
which include nudity. I surely don't need to explain this.
As a practical matter, though, these kinds of arguments only need to be
made in order to assure us all that such arguments can be made and have
been made. In reality, I think that most of us are somewhere in the
broad middle ground -- I don't think there are more than a tiny tiny
handful of people who would say that (a) there should be a strict ban on
nudity in Wikipedia, or (b) we should place the infamous auto-fellatio
image on the homepage this coming Christmas day.
Within the broad middle ground, there is a very wide range of what seem
to me to be quite respectable and plausible positions, and a fair amount
of thoughtfulness and respect for other people who disagree with us is
going to be necessary if we are to make decisions with wide community
support.
There are a number of very useful techniques that I think can help to
reduce conflict in this area. (Though of course for those who are at
the extremes that I mentioned, these don't solve the problem. But
honesty, I think most of the people who are posturing at these extremes
are actually trolling us in the classical sense, disrupting wikipedia to
make a point.)
First, whenever possible I think people should try to see if a "link"
solution is helpful. It does not reduce the educational value of an
article by much if a potentially disturbing image is put behind a link
instead of being shown by default inline. And one of the quite
reasonable arguments against certain images is that their shock value
serves to diminish the educational value of the articles in which they
are included.
Second, partisans on both sides might want to consider working to find
more tasteful images to illustrate the same concept. If, for example,
you find a particular photo disturbing, be creative about finding a
different illustration (medical-style drawing, different photo in a
different style, etc.) which will meet the educational objectives of
those on the other side while removing the shock-value problems.
Third, in all discussions of this sort, I think it best to avoid
nationalist or culturalist sneers and arguments. This list has already
seen arguments about allegedly prudish American culture -- arguments
which (a) have a ring of truth about them and (b) are nonetheless at the
same time very mistaken. US culture is extremely complex and
multi-layered with many historical quirks and oddities but in my
opinion, the US as a whole is significantly less prudish than most
Europeans seem to think.
So, yes, in the US large fines were levied for the bizarre Janet Jackson
incident. But also, you can flip the channels any night of the week and
see people having sex on television. My local grocery store puts
discreet covers on magazines which have racy titles, and huge porn
stores are open for business just down the street. In my town, a woman
can get arrested for going topless on the beach, and yet you can go any
night of the week to a nightclub where you can see people having sex
openly. Diversity. :-)
The point I'm trying to make is that _for Wikipedia_ wide-ranging
discussions about the alleged prudishness or decadence of Americans are
not really going to help us get very far in figuring out how to handle
issues of taste.
"Assume good faith" is key, but also "Don't feed the trolls" is key.
Knowing when to do one versus the other is tricky and I can offer no
advice other than to be careful and thoughtful and kind.
--Jimbo
--Jimbo
