--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not the Karma
Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 2:17 PM
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
From: Aryeh Gregor
<Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored
(was Wikipedia is not the
Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and
freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:46 PM
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM,
> Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> That said I am certain that there are articles
on
Wikipedia that are censored, just as there are
biased
articles and false articles. Wikipedia has never
been
perfect in the application of it's ideals.
Does that imply that you believe [[Goatse.cx]] should
in
fact have an
above-the-fold illustration of its subject matter, or
not? If not,
how is that any different from [[Penis]]? And if so
.
. . well, I
think you're in the minority here.
In all honesty, I don't really know. I generally find
the argument over non-free content to be not worth having,
because it takes the long-range mission out of the picture.
I am frankly, apathetic about whether Wikipedia even has an
*article* on goatse.cx and other internet memes. I wouldn't
create the article or add to it. But I wouldn't argue to
remove the image if we had either.
I would much rather formulate guidelines over the articles
the are more inherently meaningful to more people.
Like STD's or even [[Kama Sutra]]. Then evaluate
[[Goatse.cx]] by those guidelines and see where it
falls. I think focusing on what is meaningful rather
than sensational will leads to better results.
Birgitte SB
To be clear here. I don't want to look at goatse. However I came to the conclusion
back in 2006 that Birgitte SB's gut reaction as to what is acceptable is an invalid
criteria to use for what is included on Wikipedia. And while there is strong consensus as
to what is acceptable for Wikipedia to include in the face of religious or political
feelings. The situation on sexual sensitivities is less solidified. Until it is
solidified I don't know what criteria should be used to make a decision on goatse. I
do know that I don't want the criteria to evaluate articles covering important
information to be based on feelings about goatse.
Birgitte SB