Alphax wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
For me, the largest part of the problem with the
Kate Winslet nude is
that it renders all of Wikipedia non-work-safe. You can defend the
autofellatio picture by asking "why are you looking at an article
about sucking your own dick while at work?" but if any article that
mentions any person can have a nude picture of that person, I don't
dare use Wikipedia anywhere but in the privacy of my own bedroom, with
the shades drawn.
Er, the Kate Winslet nude is only marginally "nude". If it's such a
problem, use a tabbed browser or disable images.
"Marginally nude" is still nudity. One breast counts as nudity. You can
argue that nudity should be allowed on Wikipedia, and I might even
agree with you, but a spade's a spade.
And you can't seriously mean that disabling images is a real solution
to the problem. We'd have to have a notice on the main page, e.g.
"Note: Nudity may appear in any entry. If you are offended by nudity,
please disable images in your browser." I don't think that would go
over well.
Right now,
anyone at my place of work who happens to look up Kate
Winslet will be disciplined. If he then inadvertently trips over
another Wikinude, he'll be fired. In other words, Wikipedia is now
unusable in a buttoned-down professional environment.
Why are you looking up Kate Winslet at work anyway? Why aren't you
working?
I agree that this is a very good question. But the workplace isn't the
only context where being seen using a site with random nudity on it has
social consequences. So I think there's still some need for policies.
How hard would it be to add to Mediawiki the option to tag explicit
images, and have an option in the preferences to not see them? A la
Google SafeSearch. This might be a win-win (aside from the programming
work) solution.
Zach