[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Oldak Quill]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>> This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
>> sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
>> any drawing could be.
>>
>>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder

Why shouldn't it be? Most humans engage in sexual practices of some
kind or another, so I would think our content on sexual practices
would be relevant to many of our readers. You suggest we should treat
content on sexual practices differently to how we treat content on
sporting practices because some of our readers may be minors. I am not
going to dispute the cultural relativity of what is suitable for
minors at the moment, but if we were to make the assumption that some
content is not suitable for minors (or, more to the point, that
because some content is considered unsuitable for minotrs, Wikipedia
is being discouraged at school), isn't there a better solution than
deleting content? For example, couldn't articles be tagged with a
"this article details sexual practices which some readers may feel is
not suitable for minors"? Articles with such a tag could be blocked in
user preferences, or for school IP ranges at the request of the
school. We could explain the tag at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia for
schools]] and explain how it is used.

I, personally, contend the premise that some content is inherently
unsuitable for minors. It really comes down to what some sections of
society consider unsuitable. For example, a Mormon parent's idea of
what is unsuitable, may differ to a Protestant parent's idea of what
is unsuitable - leaving alone the many possible non-Christian
variations. The point is that "suitability" is culturally relative.
Some parents may think it unsuitable at all to describe genital organs
or reproduction, many would think it entirely suitable. If we are to
honour removal/selective blocking of content on the grounds that it is
sexual, should we also honour a Mormon's parent's requests to block
the [[Joseph Smith]] article, which may give details that are
unpalatable to Mormons? Should we selectively block articles relating
to non-belief to honour parent's concerns as to what their children
are exposed to? It is a very slippery slope.

I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
that basis.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)