On 30 September 2011 12:06, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- 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. <snip>
No, I think he understood it just fine. I have seen similar arguments in
several places on various projects: not just that it could be acceptable,
but that there is a duty to include such information in articles that
overrides editorial judgment, regardless of quality, source or other
factors.
Risker