-+- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
Sorry, I'm just uncomftorble with nudity in Wikipedia in general, although drawings are okay.
I too am not too keen on nudity.
I feel that an encyclopedia ofour caliber can really positively impact the lives and education of younger people. By which I mean anyone who can read and click a mouse (I don't know how old that is, but my guess is around 4 years old)
I would want to be able to send a 10 year old inquisitive mind to the W without any reservation.
Your parenting methods are your own business. However, if nudity is appropriate and informative in an article, it should be treated like any other material addition. The display of nudity for educational purposes is legal in almost every non-theocratic nation, including, as far as I can tell, the United States.
The problem with the clitoris photo inserted by MaryMary was that it was not particularly informative (the clitoris itself was barely visible), that it looked like it was cropped from a porn picture, and that the copyright status was unclear. This is why I objected to having it, otherwise I would have insisted on adding at the very least a direct link to the picture, stored on the Wikipedia server. A photo and a drawing are far from the same thing, and if your 10 year old inquisitive mind wants to know what a clitoris is, it helps tremendously to actually see a photo thereof. Abstractions have advantages and disadvantages, usually, both are required, especially for children.
Regards,
Erik