On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/5/14 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
> So is my cookbook censored because it
doesn't include a description of
> the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
> it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces
> aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question entirely and the
> answer should not be based on people being offended by images of them.
Yes. Editing is censoring, therefore there is no
such separate thing
as censoring, therefore the decision to put a picture on
[[Autofellatio]] (WARNING: contains photograph) is an editorial
decision. Which it in fact was.
Hit "send" too soon - The point is that "disgusting" or
"potentially
morally corrupting" or "sacreligious" have consistently been roundly
rejected as editorial criteria. So it doesn't matter if someone tries
to argue that editing is censorship, their editorial urge to do
something others would call censoring has *still* consistently been
roundly rejected.
As I said, the most likely way to get such an effort off the ground is
for someone to put together a filtered selection outside the live
working wiki.
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors
and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages.
A simple "this image may be inappropriate (show/show all from now on)"
button would go a long way and would be ridiculously easy to implement.
The hard part is convincing enwiki that they're not always right.
-Chad