> You know Anthere is on the foundation board,
right?
Oh I knew. :)
But I think the ideas are wrong and at odds with the
published goals.
If I do not misunderstand Anthere and the views are truly
representative and accepting censorship based on some peoples
non-neutral value judgements is acceptable ... then I think we should
discuss the matter, because I think a lot of people are misled by the
principal of neutrality 'as advertised'.
I think you are confusing censorship and neutrality
If we were claiming autofellatio is not possible, we would be incorrect.
If we were saying autofellatio is bad, we would be non-neutral.
If we were deleting the autofellatio article and pretending it does not exist, it would be
censorship.
If we display a picture of autofellatio in the autofellation article, it is possibly
displaying offensive content, or possibly not.
If we decide to use a drawing rather than the image in the autofellatio article, it is
possibly admitting a taboo, or possibly not.
If we display autofellatio image in user talk page, it is hurting people who do not expect
to see such a picture on a talk page (while they can choose not to go to the
autofellatio)
If we do nothing to help those who spent hours cleaning up, it is lacking respect for
other people time. It is unwikilove.
Both neutrality and censorship are "strong guidelines".
But neither are *rules*, in the sense none strictly and thoroughly explain exactly what
should be from what should not be done. There is no page saying "if there is 1 cm3
blood, display. If there are 5 cm3 do not." There are examples given, but
essentially, those are *guidelines*.
As for all guidelines applications, only editors have the authority to try to set rules to
attempt to follow the guidelines.
On wikipedia, there is a strong desire to follow a couple of mandatory
guidelines/principles, but there is an equally strong desire to let editors create
themselves their own rules to try to fit the guidelines.
I think accepting that cultures have different taboos is right.
Calling other communities rules and opinions, when differing from yours,
"non-neutral" is wrong. This is what you are doing. The decision of the english
wikipedia is fine, but the rules applied on the english wikipedia, belongs to the english
wikipedia. They should not impair the right of other communities to set their own rules,
without those being called censorship.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.