Hello all, As you probably know, the United Kingdom's Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) recently blocked (and subsequently unblocked) several Wikipedia articles on the basis that they contained what what was allegedly an indecent picture of a naked pre-pubescent girl (a cover of the Virgin Killer album). While the IWF's ban on these pages was badly implemented and perhaps in itself inappropriate, there is a serious issue at stake here—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and, since it is reached by thousands if not millions of school students on a daily basis, should it be carrying these kinds of pictures? 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 appropriate for inclusion, and other types are not—high standards of scholarship should be maintained throughout the project. The "not censored" clause in Wikipedia policy, though, seems to be commonly (mis?)understood to allow unregulated free expression and unrestricted content on Wikipedia; it is my understanding, at least, that this is not, or was not originally, the case. The clause that Wikipedia is not censored appears to me to be a kind of disclaimer for readers: "Wikipedia doesn't have any paid staff to check that content contained in the encyclopedia is appropriate for younger readers; therefore, you should know that you can find material that you may find objectionable here." I believe that the clause was originally written with the intent of giving readers fair warning about what they might run into, not for justifying the inclusion of all types of material. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia; well, according to established standards of traditional scholarship, this picture would not be displayed in any "true" encyclopedia—at least, I don't see Encyclopædia Britannica including it anytime soon, and Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger has already stated that the image won't be appearing on Citizendium (see http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/11/citizendium-safe-for-virgins/). The argument from the standpoint that the picture has not yet been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in Wikipedia, seems even weaker than the previous one. It hinges on a critical point—the assumption that if content is legal, Wikipedia can and _should_ include it. This is incorrect, as I have stated and justified above: Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and according to this standard it should only include certain types of content. Legality, therefore, can only define material that must be _excluded_; it does not dictate what should be _included_. Some users have expressed worry over the precedent that might be set if the picture was deleted or removed from the articles it appears in—"Next," they say, "it'll be images of Muhammed." Well, I'm not going to argue here for the inclusion or exclusion of images of Muhammed; but I will say that, unlike images of Muhammed, the Virgin Killer album cover image and other pictures like it are considered indecent, obscene, taboo, and/or distasteful by _general people_ (as opposed to radical religious fundamentalists, free speech advocates, commercial stakeholders, et cetera) in practically all human cultures. Pictures like these can be described using words, and they do not have to be shown in all of their gory detail—personally, I have not viewed the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, yet I have learnt of its general content through what has been said about it. Should Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia and reaches millions of people daily—many, if not _most_, of them school students—really be distributing images such as the one that prompted the IWF ban? I hope that we can engage in polite, reasoned intellectual debate rather than hinging on ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT bigotry. Cheers and best regards, —Thomas Larsen