[Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Tue Apr 21 14:38:07 UTC 2009

The argument is about "not safe for work", it is about not showing these
pictures because you tag them as such. Consequently medical conditions,
particularly those that have a sexual dimension will be affected.

Explain to me why my point of view is not valid AND explain why these images
are not tagged in the proposed way. You cannot have it both ways.

2009/4/21 Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > When you make illustration not visible you effectively remove them. It is
> a
> > cop out to continue and say that it is *others *that can decide that they
> > do
> > not want to be informed, that they are willing that other people are at
> > risk
> > because essential images are not readily available. It is a cop out
> because
> > this risk is ignored. Ignored because it is convenient
> >
> > As to BLP, the images that I am talking about do not identify people.
> They
> > show what is essentially a detail and a penis or a vagina may be part of
> > this.
> >
> > When the issue is about people using images in places where they are not
> > appropriate, then deal with that issue. Do not confuse this with the
> > legitimate use of essential but problematic images.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> Honestly, this tangent has very little if anything to do with the issue
> that
> we ought to be discussing. No one has proposed removing or hiding images
> depicting medical conditions. If you want to argue against something that
> no
> one is arguing for, you should start a new thread.
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list