Finding nudity offensive is not a cultural universal. Members of some
cultures may be offended by looking at certain animals full-on or in
photographs; what if those animals popped up in search? Where does it end?
Where do we draw the line?
What do we hide (or erase) and what do we keep unhidden? If you look at it
from a monocultural perspective, the answer seems not so hard - perhaps we
just hide everything showing sexual organs (but then does this include
female breasts?) and violence. Some people may advocate hiding images that
contain words like "fuck".
Of course, in other cultures other things are offensive, and there are
literally thousands of different cultures on this planet with differing
sensibilities and different ideas of what is right and what is wrong. The
only strategy I support is one in which we allow the unrestricted display
of everything that is legal and include disclaimers that we are not
intended as a children's site and that adults should make careful use of
their own judgement about letting their children read Wikipedia. It is not
our responsibility.
2012/2/9 Andreas K. <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:52 AM, M. Williamson
<node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, and some people don't like the fact that
we tell the truth about,
say,
the Taiwan situation (or at least we try our very
best to), or the
Tienanmen Square protests of 1989.
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?
I think it's very stupid to equate
"people don't like this" to "this is a
problem".
So yes, the situation is still unchanged, but in my opinion it is a GOOD
thing that it's still unchanged. The advertising situation on Wikipedia
is
"still unchanged", but unchanged
situations don't have to be bad, and in
this case I am a firm believer that the status quo is far better than
what
this woman (and many image filter proposals) is
proposing.
2012/2/2 Andreas K. <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Yaroslav M.
Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:35:10 +0000, "Andreas
K." <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> A Wikimedian has just started a Facebook page "Stop pornography on
> Wikipedia"
>
>
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745
> > >
> >
> > If I read it correct, she opened a Facebook group since, as she
states,
> > she could not find anybody on Wikipedia
who would share her opinion.
I
do
> not see why we should worry about this.
There are many people with
their
> own agenda who could not find anybody on
Wikipedia to share their
agenda
and go to
promote it elsewhere.
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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l