From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com
[snippages]
We censor pictures of clitoris on the english wikipedia. We censor clitoris pictures, while billion of humans on Earth have a clitoris, and that is something perfectly normal to have.
We censor clitoris for the motive that people could be shocked.
However, we do not censor pictures of torture and humiliation. Forgive me, but I am troubled.So, explain to me why we show shocking images of human humiliation, while we cant display clitoris, because chaste eyes would be shocked ?
It troubles me, too.
If you want an _explanation..._ as opposed to a justification... I'd say that many Wikipedians seem to implicitly judge the suitability of pictures in Wikipedia by applying the standards of major U.S. newspapers. As of today, I can't imagine the Boston Globe printing a photograph of a clitoris; I _can_ imagine it printing a carefully stylized diagram of one, although I'm not sure whether they ever have. And they _have_ printed some of the abuse pictures, with genitalia blurred.
The New York Times used to, and I believe still does bear the slogan "All the news that's fit to print." I suspect many people follow the judgements of the New York TImes. I don't say this is right, I'm saying I think it's what many of us do.
I don't mean that newspapers specifically are arbiters; I mean that there is some weird cultural consensus that can be observed by watching what newspapers do.
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net alternate: dpbsmith@alum.mit.edu "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/