Actually, I would argue that we shouldn't censor for principled reasons.
Supposing it were the case that we could safely censor only sexual
content with no slippery slope, we still shouldn't do so because it is
wrong regardless what the practical consequences may or may not be. That
said, a more utilitarian argument may be necessary where we have
contributors who reject these basic values.
-Mike
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 15:13 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>et>:
I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
include Wikipedia is not a
manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
Karma Sutra.
What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.