Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While cultural sensitivity is important, it should not keep us from documenting things that are notable.
Incest is a taboo in many cultures, and many people are not willing to discuss it in English. That does not mean we do not have articles on such a notable topic. We have articles on many indecent and disgusting things on the English Wikipedia. Of course this will bring the argument that English speakers have low moral standards, but I am sure OTRS has received more than a few complaints about "indecent" content on the English Wikipedia.
That you could simply eliminate an article about sex and sexuality from any Wikipedia is beyond me, regardless of culture. It may be taboo, but it is the fundamental root of any society. Although we may pretend in discussions all we want that we were just wished into existance by our parents, all mentally-able adults are aware on some level that they are the result of the procreative process.
And even if we do not wish to talk about human sexuality, what about animals? Animals have children too.
This is similar to the arguments against Blockinblox when s/he said that articles about Sexuality should simply not exist at some Wikipedias.
People may not talk about sex in public in a particular society, but it is probably still going to the one of the most-searched-for terms in Wikipedia in almost any culture.
If you don't personally want to write about sex, or make it a priority to write it or make it a featured article if it is written, but at the very least, there needs to be a foundation-wide discussion about whether it would really be acceptable to delete a well-written article on the topic if it were created.
Also, I'm curious as to what "your culture" is. Is it Cherokee? Because you seem to claim some degree of proficiency in that language. Or is it Creek? Because you claim that is your native language. Perhaps it is Navajo. Or perhaps it is not Navajo, because you very clearly do not have as deep an understanding of that culture as you claim (you said my Navajo is incorrect because its word order differs from English. I studied Navajo in college for three semesters, I think I know that word order differs greatly from English, even if my Navajo is not perfect.)
So I am not saying we must have such articles in all Wikipedias, but I am saying we need to discuss this issue at a foundation level sooner rather than later.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Yonatan Horan wrote:
Heh, as I said previously, the block was lifted within three days as it was clear to more than one admin that I was erroneously blocked. I wouldn't have brought this issue to foundation-l if attempts to resolve the issue on the Hebrew Wikipedia had succeeded. All of what you're suggesting has already been done and different compromises were already attempted. The other thing is that while you may not be inclined to believe what I'm saying, the community never decided this should be policy, it's just that some admins enforce it as if it were policy.
-Yonatan
Then you need to go make your arguments to the folks on that Wiki or fork the Hebrew Wikipedia and head off on your own if you cannot make headway. The folks here are not going to dictate to another group to do something contrary to their culture. It's an open internet after all.
Good luck.
:-)
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l