Are we really supposed to believe that people who would object to the appearance of a photograph at [[Autofellatio]] won't also object to the text at [[Fuck]]?
RickK
Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote: Skyring said:
Well, no. All we need do is have some sort of flag for explicit images and make sure that these are handled appropriately. It could be completely transparent to the user through using cookies. I don't want to ban such images, nor do I think it is possible to stop children viewing them. I just want a way to stop wowsers equating Wikipedia with porn and demonstrating this on prime time TV.
There is no way to stop them doing that except to have extremely strict control of all sexual topics on Wikipedia.If you have a strong stomach look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch That article has been on Wikipedia since July. No illustration is necessary, the description of the act alone would tell most parents that Wikipedia is not child-safe. For this reason I think the argument for appeasement is a bust. We're making an encyclopedia and we should make decisions on an article-by-article basis. Does this article serve a useful purpose? Does this illustration improve the article's usefulness to someone who wants to know about the topic? Does this link provide relevant information at an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'