On 2/22/08, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, but what sets this category apart from
any other, say for
instance [[Category:Dogs in clothing]] (at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dogs_in_clothing ). Commons
Here are some things:
- It's NSFW. I accidentally clicked on "masturbating amy" at work,
thinking it couldn't possibly be...
- It's not safe for kids. Apparently some libraries already ban
wikipedia. Making institutions unwilling to use our resource is not
helping spread knowledge.
- I would happily reorganise a "dogs in clothing" category while my
girlfirend was watching.
- It's bad for our reputation to be known as a source of pornography.
It's not bad for our reputation to be known as a source of dogs in
clothing photos.
is simply a collection of free media representing
different aspects of
human life. And not to get on a high horse or anything, but there is
absolutely nothing shameful about female masturbation. It's a
perfectly healthy part of human life, it should be encouraged, and
information about it should be distributed as widely as possible.
Yes, you are introducing a moral argument which is probably best kept
out. There's obviously nothing wrong having photos of "shameful"
topics (think of political events, massacres etc).
In addition, three of the images are fine works of
art (the Klimt one
is spectacular and the Japanese one is mezmerizing) and another one is
fascinating illustration, a true picture of its time.
I think the illustrations - particularly historical - are ok. They
probably pass the tests listed above.
Frankly, I find your position prudish and
counter-productive with
respect for what we are trying to achieve. We shouldn't censor based
on morality.
Heh, it's not often I get called prudish. I'm not quite sure what you
mean by "censoring based on morality", because I don't think I'm
proposing censoring, and I'm not bringing morality into anything. I'm
suggesting that storing and making available porn is not good for our
mission.
Steve