--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan
Kaldari<rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari<rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and
image filters
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone
argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
that they should therefore be ignored.
Well, when every thoughtful comment you
have on a topic is met with
nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems
quite valid.
Ryan Kaldari
Quite.
I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a rape (perhaps
a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in the article on
[[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored.
That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it should be
included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not censored.
That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED requires us to
embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded.
That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of men having
the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of naked women have to be
kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
And so on.
Andreas
I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that
there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate
Illustration for the subject. Would you say the same, if this[1] or some
other documentary film would be put under the CC license? Wouldn't it be
illustrative as well as educational?
[1]