[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
nawrich at gmail.com
Fri Jan 30 04:19:46 UTC 2009
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud at gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition
> that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a
> multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many
> images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of
> image I am aware of.
So what are you arguing? Say something real instead of arguing semantics. I
don't know about everyone else reading this list, but my patience for
philosophical and largely irrelevant tangents sidetracking serious
discussions is wearing thin. Are you arguing that Commons should permit as
many sexually explicit images of as many different situations and angles as
people could possibly hope to post? (Assuming the uploaders take the bold
step of marking it as "free"). Should we take no steps to protect people who
have no wish to have their photos published worldwide on a site owned by a
charity devoted to knowledge? Do you prefer that we not even ask uploaders
if the image subjects are over 18?
To some people Commons is meant to host absolutely anything free that people
like to upload. To some of those people, and to others, trying to place
restrictions of any sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism
and censorship. To me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible.
Wikimedia has a reputation that is crucial to its larger goals; making
images of naked young women accessible worldwide, for years, in a place
where they may never notice does not serve that reputation. When "commons
community members in good standing" keep personal galleries of these types
of images in their userspace, and that is the only use to which those images
are being put, then whose goals are being served?
More information about the foundation-l