You beg the question. Of course it does. Who wants their 12 year old girl reading about anal sex? But where is the parent when a boy suggests anal sex so she can continue to be a virgin? Fred

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Phil Nash <phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: ANI isn't a content page. -- John Vandenberg

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:15:00PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote: Pages on wikipedia should not be rated. Ratings are per definition a prejudicial labelling scheme, they are given as an example of such a scheme by ALA. ALA classifies such rating schemes as "Censorship tools". The canadian and international library associations have similar definitions. Censorship and the tools thereto are evil. Our objective is to promote information that is free as in freedom of speech. Wikipedia is a constructive and friendly way to achieve this goal. I would prefer to attain my goals in constructive and friendly ways (obviously). I would prefer not to work in unfriendly ways, or outright destructive ways. If you want to promote a rating scheme, please do so elsewhere. sincerely, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

John Vandenberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_PRC Is this a trick question? MZMcBride

editorial self-control. Always appropriate. Fred

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: Neither has Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored, but it does still select the pictures it puts on pages based on relevance and quality. There are few pages where pictures of 'my genitals' are applicable, and unless they are very good photographers, there are better alternatives also on those pages. -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: , > Britannica didn't only have problems witn NOTCENSORED, they also had *humongous* problems with NPOV. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Uh uh, there is no governor general of the United States with dictatorial power. We have an enforceable constitution in which guarantees freedom of speech. Fred

John Vandenberg wrote: Rubbish, and the article you cite is very poorly-written anyway. Australia is not China and does not, and cannot, restrict access to websites that are global in nature. And if it even tried to do so, I've met a few Aussies in my time who understand the Internet and would easily subvert any regulation whatsoever. Not many, it has to be said, but enough to make such a move useless. Such debate would be useless. "one man's meat", etc, and I don't see how Wikipedia could possibly subscribe to a "lowest-common denominator" type of policy, unless it wants to become an encyclopedia fit only for children, and beyond that, an encyclopedia fit only for what parents, or worse, politicians, think appropriate. I didn't fight in two World Wars- I admit that- but my parents and grandparents did- that we could have free access to information, which means all information. And any attempt at grading, rating, or whatever, is bound to be a breach of so many WP policies that if you don't know what they are, you shouldn't be an Arbitrator, an Administrator, or even an editor. Kill this idea now.

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:00:27PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote: I know, right? That's why it's politically so damned inconvenient for the board to move for a filter now. It plays right into the hands of these thoroughly nasty people. sincerely, Kim Bruning

On 13 September 2011 18:23, M. Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: That's rather the point of putting up these examples for illustration and as a test for any proposal. Where do you draw the line? The mummy in question is a real person, regardless of age, and detailed photographs of their dead body are problematic for a number of reasons, not just their nudity, and we changed the Wikimedia article title with the encouragement of the museum in order to explain how they now comply with the UK's human tissue act. The Warren Cup is one of the most famous erotic objects from the Roman period and the two images of anal intercourse (with who in modern times would be considered a boy) is fully explicit and for this reason used to be locked away in a cupboard in the British Museum as it was considered far too graphic for public consumption (it has recently been displayed at a lower hight making it easier for those in wheelchairs to enjoy and for children to ask about). The "piece of stale bread" has never been interpreted as anything else but an artistic depiction of sexual intercourse, should one introduce "PG" certificate style protection for children (or schools), it would doubtless include this object too. Cheers, Fae

2011/9/13 John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> Which images are "gratuitous"? Doesn't this vary based on your POV (and degree of prudishness)? I wouldn't consider any of the images in any of the articles Fae mentioned to be gratuitous, but some people certainly might. I would hope that we would never resort to removing such images, which certainly serve an educational purpose and definitely belong in those articles, just because someone feels that they're "inappropriate". An article about "Penis" should include an image of its subject, just like the article "Banana" includes pictures of bananas; what I consider gratuitous is if somebody tries to include pictures of penises in the article "Photograph" as examples of photographs "because WP:NOTCENSORED" (for example). As long as it illustrates the article, we shouldn't remove it just because some person somewhere (or even a lot of people in a lot of places) finds it objectionable. So [[pregnancy]] should keep the image of the pregnant woman; (if someone tries to add an image of a penis saying "Penises tend to be involved in causing pregnancy", that would be "gratuitous" I think) nudity can be educational and illustrative without being pornographic. All of the articles Fae mentioned should keep their images intact, given that the subjects of those articles are directly depicted in the images.