On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 11:09:16AM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
- The assumption that adults would not be offended by seeing this
photo inline is naive - just because I want to learn about something doesn't mean I want to see it performed (whether that be autofellatio or beheadings or whatever) - in fact IMHO wanting to learn about something by going to an encylopedia should imply that a scholarly or educational view of the subject is desired - for a Mass Media interpretation - one would just use google (or their favorite search engine). And if one really wanted to see it - use an image search.
Who is assuming that adults would not, or should not, be offended? I expect that adults will be offended by many things they see and read on Wikipedia. Thankfully, offense has never killed anyone, and mentally healthy human beings are capable of functioning reasonably happily whilst being aware that there exist many, many things in the world which offend them.
For what it's worth, I don't think this fuss is really about autofellatio, any more than it was about clitorises (clitorides?) when the fuss was over the article [[Clitoris]]. Badly-chosen images are easily replaced within the normal Wikipedia editing process, and the abuse of Wikipedia to troll with "shock-site" images is readily defeated within that process as well, as you can see in action on the talk page [[Talk:Goatse.cx]].
Rather, the issue here seems to me to be whether Wikipedia needs some kind of rules under which people's work will be deleted or hidden away on the grounds of being "offensive". I hold that it does not; indeed, that such rules would harm the project. Existing ad-hoc practices work just fine for selecting the work that should be included, on the basis of accuracy, style, neutrality, copyright, and other such rules.
- Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type.
I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may have wanted one).
In holding that students should have access (presumably via Wikipedia) to definitions and descriptions of fellatio, you've already placed this ideal of Wikipedia where it would be blocked by censorware and other processes that seek to "protect" children from "indecency".
The presence or absence of images would not, then, control whether Wikipedia were accessible to those students.
==QUESTION== Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a link" not considered a reasonable?
Offense is not a good criterion on which to judge whether material should be presented in an encyclopedia. If it were, we would be unable to cover adequately any number of subjects which offend people.
Luckily for the easily-offended, many of the images (and pieces of text) which they deem the most egregious examples of "offensive" content also fail good criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And, on those grounds, those materials already do get replaced or removed in the normal process of Wikipedia editing.
The current images on [[Clitoris]], for instance, seem to strike many people as "less offensive" than the ones which started the brouhaha there. However, the replacement was justifiable based on encyclopedic standards rather than solely on standards of offense which would have led to the eradication of any images there.