On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:45:23 +1100, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
Really, I think we could do with some intervention from Jimbo on this issue. I'm a rabid leftie, and one reason I chose to study law was because I detest censorship. Yet, at the same time, I utterly refuse to have to put vile censorship software on my own computer to avoid seeing inline what shouldn't be there in the first place. I could really care less about some of the more minor ones, such as [[Clitoris]], but I'm on record as saying that the day [[Goatse]] and similar articles receive according pictures is the day that I leave Wikipedia and demand that every trace of my involvement on this site be removed. I love this site, but I would no longer want to be personally associated with such a place.
Hear, hear!
Wikipedia with gratuitous images aimed at shock or titillation isn't an encyclopaedia - it's something else.
To my mind, [[Clitoris]], [[Penis]] and so on are valid cases for a photograph of the bits in question on an educational basis. Any more than one (or perhaps two for [[Penis]]) is just making a meal of it. [[Goatse]] doesn't need an article on its own, but perhaps belongs in an article about some aspect of the Web, presumably with a link. [[Autofellatio]] should be one line and no image in the [[Masturbation]] article. If there is such a thing.
Just how far do we take open source and liberty? Are we going to have [[Child Pornography]] complete with pictures and links, just because someone thinks we should?