On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
[snip]
I've heard two main arguments in favour of keeping the specific Virgin Killer picture, and similar images, so far. The first position pivots on the clause in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (which is official Wikipedia policy) that states that "Wikipedia is not censored"; the second is based on the argument that the picture has not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in Wikipedia.
The argument from the standpoint that Wikipedia is not censored seems to be easily refuted, at least to me. Wikipedia claims to be, first and foremost, an _encyclopedia_; thus, some types of material are
[snip]
You've missed a primary argument which your first counter-argument arguably supports:
Actually seeing the image is arguably critical to having a nuanced understanding of the debate about the image. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia believes it has an obligation to try to be maximally informative.
I can state that having seen the image caused me to have an entirely different view on the past (and now current, I suppose) controversy than if I had not seen it. Wikipedia allowed me to form my own opinion in a way which would have simply not been possible otherwise. In the Wikipedia vision of an encyclopedia that is an ideal outcome. (There are other ideals of an encyclopedia out there: Some encyclopedias would prefer to give you a single pre-digested experts view, WP prefers to let you make up your own mind where possible).
I don't think too many would argue that this trumps all other considerations, but the most obvious trumping considerations such as the image being illegal or the image actually causing harm to someone are not especially well substantiated.