Theresa Knott wrote:
Well I'm making a big assumption here. But I'm going to assume that Florida is a reasonable state with reasonable laws on obscenity. If that is the case then we simple shouldn't have any images that are obscene.
It is a reasonable state on these matters, and in any event the controlling law in this sort of matter is generally the U.S. constitution (First Amendment).
Wikipedia is an encylopedia not a pornshop.
I agree completely.
For example. I do not believe that the picture of an erect penis on the penis article is obscene. It it encylopedic and entirely appropriate for minors, and I cannot believe that the state of Florida would think otherwise. _If_ we have any pornographic pictures, and we do have a lot of pics of pornstars, I haven't checked them all but it's certainly possible that someone might upload a pornographic image of one of them we should simplr delete them as innapropriate for an encylopedia.
I think this is very well put.
In many cases the distinction between an appropriate illustration and inappropriate pornography is a matter of style, of editorial taste and judgment. This may sound like a useless non-answer, but it's the exact same answer we routinely employ in our process of determining what articles should say. We think about it, discuss it, try to get consensus, try to find the best way to *get it right*.
--Jimbo