On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] I don't agree. In general images which are excessively shocking (I'd argue that shocking is a strict superset of 'obscene') diminish the educational value of Wikipedia: People will miss our brilliant prose if they are too busy gawking at (or trying to escape) a shocking image. There is an editorial need to make some trade-off there balancing informative value vs possible revulsion, interest piquing vs distraction, and 'sum of all knowledge' vs being unable to educate because the product is widely banned. The possibility that some image will be consider obscene by some communities is a relevant factor. On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com> wrote: I, as someone who can actually speak from the experience of seeing the image, think it is highly relevant. Not really. To be blunt and unfair: A major part of the controversy is that some people see the image to be some sexualized image of a minor, and other people look at it see nothing sexual about it and think the first group are probably closet pedophiles. It's basically impossible to give a textual depiction of the image which is both specific and neutral enough to actually allow people to make the above decision on their own. The information provided by pictures and text is sometimes just too orthogonal. Perhaps the value provided by the reader being able to make up their own mind is out-weighted by other factors… I think that might be a good discussion, but I really do believe that there is a clear value. I think we can answer this part fairly objectively: What is done for images where there is no controversy? What would be done if the controversy were only the treatment of the child and not the image itself? I think in both these cases the answer is clear: In mediums where the image can be included it would usually be included in scholarly works. Our own coverage of visual topics includes extensive illustration, many journals included color images even though authors often have to pay fees to cover color images. At English Wikipedia we compromise one of our core principles (free content licensing purity) in order to excerpt from commercial works for illustrative purposes. So on the question of whether visual illustrations often have scholarly value in excess of non-trivial costs? I believe the answer is an uncontested and unambiguous yes. In the question of if this particular image has scholarly value, there appears to be wide consensus that it does and I'd add that as someone who hasn't seen it you are in a somewhat weakened position to raise a serious argument that it doesn't. (Though I'll conced that as someone who hasn't looked at it, or won't admit publicly to looking, and still is publicly arguing against its use that actually seeing it would probably not change your position on it.) On the question of the value of that image offsetting the costs of that image? I'm less convinced that particular argument is a clear-cut issue… but that isn't a discussion that we can reasonably have if you're holding firm to the issue that the image has no value at all. I think English Wikipedia isn't adequately considering the cost benefit trade-off of shocking image generally at this time. (In particular I think the slow trend words using photographs of sex acts rather than equally informative but less potentially-offensive drawings is ill considered…)