Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things unacceptable?

Birgitte SB

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:

From: Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:59 PM Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't censored because it allows pictures of penises is fooling himself.  Wikipedia is absolutely censored from images its editors find disgusting.

<snip sexuality rant>

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:

...

I think our efforts would be better focused making all

of our content better suited for re-usability by different tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which tastes need to be targeted.  Rather than creating a mirror ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of the content.

It would definitely be a good start to create a hierarchy of categories for the use of private parties who would like to censor their own Internet access, or that of those they have responsibility for.  The way to go would be neutral designations like "Category:Pictures containing genitals", "Category:Pictures containing breasts", "Category:Depictions of Muhammad", and so on.  This strictly adds value to the project.

Then we would pick a set of categories to be blocked by default. Blocked images wouldn't be hidden entirely, just replaced with a link explaining why they were blocked.  Clicking the link would cause them to display in place, and inline options would be provided to show all images in that category in the future (using preferences for users, otherwise cookies).  Users could block any categories of images they liked from their profile.

To begin with, we could preserve the status quo by disabling only very gory or otherwise really disgusting images by default.  More reasonably, we could follow every other major website in the developed world, and by default disable display of any image containing male or female genitalia, or sex acts.  Users who wanted the images could, again, get them with a single click, so there is no loss of information -- which is, after all, what we exist to provide. Wikipedia does not aim to push ideologies of sexual liberation.

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l