G'day Phil,
On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:33 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn.
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
There's objective fact, and then there's the Phil Welch approach to reality. Well done.
On a certain level, you do have a point. For instance, take NPOV. We write from a neutral point of view not because that's the best kind of POV there is (it's not). The best kid of POV, in my opinion, is Mark Gallagher's Point of View. Ryan Delaney would probably consider his own POV the best one. I'm certain you think your POV is the best POV. Since I don't want your POV to be the Official Voice of Wikipedia, and you don't want mine, we compromise on NPOV. On many potentially subjective issues, consensus is the way to go. If Jimbo were to declare tomorrow that Mark Gallagher's POV replaces NPOV, I would be happy, and certain Wikipedia articles would undoubtedly improve out of sight ... but many editors would leave, if only because they don't like the idea of what our article "American English" now says.
On points of objective fact, however, there's really not that much room for differing viewpoints (except, perhaps, to point out that those views are wrong). We have an image, which is a) pornographic and b) depicts a child. There really aren't too many ways you can combine 'a' and 'b' without coming up with kiddie porn which is, I know you'll agree, a Bad Thing.
"Imagine a world in which Ryan Delaney has free access to the sum of human knowledge..."
Heh, I must admit, that's a good line. Well done!