From: Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
[snippages]
We censor pictures of clitoris on the english
wikipedia.
We censor clitoris pictures, while billion of humans on Earth have a
clitoris, and that is something perfectly normal to have.
We censor clitoris for the motive that people could be shocked.
However, we do not censor pictures of torture and humiliation. Forgive
me, but I am troubled.So, explain to me why we show shocking images of
human humiliation,
while we cant display clitoris, because chaste eyes would be shocked ?
It troubles me, too.
If you want an _explanation..._ as opposed to a justification... I'd
say that many Wikipedians seem to implicitly judge the suitability of
pictures in Wikipedia by applying the standards of major U.S.
newspapers. As of today, I can't imagine the Boston Globe printing a
photograph of a clitoris; I _can_ imagine it printing a carefully
stylized diagram of one, although I'm not sure whether they ever have.
And they _have_ printed some of the abuse pictures, with genitalia
blurred.
The New York Times used to, and I believe still does bear the slogan
"All the news that's fit to print." I suspect many people follow the
judgements of the New York TImes. I don't say this is right, I'm saying
I think it's what many of us do.
I don't mean that newspapers specifically are arbiters; I mean that
there is some weird cultural consensus that can be observed by watching
what newspapers do.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net alternate:
dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at
http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/