Nicholas Knight wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
I continue to see no usefulness in it, and the "why not" is because people _will not use wikipedia_, and quite likely, existing editors would leave. I certainly would if this became an accepted part of Wikipedia. It would be a final demonstration that the people here are not the least bit interested in constructing a useful educational resource, but seek only to shove a social agenda down other's throats.
Now you've really lost me. Who seeks "only to shove a social agenda down other's [sic] throats"? What social agenda do you mean? This isn't some kind of moral objection to the act of autofellatio, is it?
No, it's an objection to shoving explicit and disgusting images in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the purpose of trying to force the world to somehow "de-prudify" itself.
Who exactly is trying to push that agenda? Do you mean to suggest that everyone that opposes your interpretation is pushing that agenda?
Personally, I am not trying to "de-prudify" the world in any way. I'm merely interested in an informative encyclopedia whose effectiveness is not limited by prudishness. Making the encyclopedia effective by "de-prudifying" its policies and trying to "de-prudify" the world aren't even marginally equivalent. If you aren't referring to me some class of people including me, though, I'd like to know what you mean.
-- Chad