On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>wrote;wrote: Well, it's relevant to the extent that she came across a masturbation video while looking for something completely different. (I think she said she was looking up "roll over".) Some people don't like that. It's a problem we've discussed before: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems The situation is still unchanged. A.

Perhaps a better example is the article on Santa Claus. If you look at the talkpage, you'll find a couple of people protesting that it isn't a "child-friendly" article, by which they really mean that we don't "play along" with the Santa charade like NORAD, Google and countless other prominent examples. Of course, not playing along is the CORRECT course of action, that is what our principles tell us to do - we shouldn't be knowingly providing false information to anybody, whatever our intention. (In my opinion, the Santa Claus article doesn't state clearly enough that Santa Claus is not a real person, due to the persistent efforts of two or three editors who want the article to be more "child friendly") So yes, lots of people think what we're doing is wrong, but so what? You can never please anybody. That is why you need to choose a set of principles and stick with them. At least that way, when people don't like what you're doing, you can point to your principles and say "Hey, we've always been this way" and you get credibility from having had the same policy or position all along. 2012/2/6 M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:52 AM, M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: So if members of the public looking for a sound file of tolling bells in Commons get http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbation_Techniques_-_tolling_of… as their first search hit in Commons, this somehow strikes a blow for freedom in the way our coverage of the Tiananmen Square protests does?