Well, actually, I've just looked at "clitoris", and it is rather modest as these articles go (compared for example with all the duplicative pictures of the scrotum). It doesn't even use one of the various photos of women exhibiting their vulvas. As far as the sexual organs are concerned, we have an overabundance of images, ranging from classic medical drawings to pushing-the-limits-near-pornography. The choices made vary widely, so that some articles are medically modest (but quite clear), and others are rather graphic. Inevitably the more graphic examples draw complaints, and the more modest do not. There does in fact seem to be a happy (but not orgasmic) medium for this type of article. and I haven't seen any sign that people think there should be no depictions at all.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No, no we don't. We can decide on a case-by-case basis, by discussion and consensus among the editors of a given article, the same way we do for *every other editorial decision*...
We don't decide every decision on a case by case basis, we have policy to determine more decisions. The exact details of how to apply a policy to a given situation is determined on a case by case basis, but there is usually a policy to apply.
If you add show/hide tags to [[Muhammad]], how long do you think it will take for the edit war to start on [[Clitoris]]? I'd give it about 3 hours...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, actually, I've just looked at "clitoris", and it is rather modest as these articles go
Ok, bad example. I was in a uni computer room at the time and didn't want to check! I think my point was clear, though.