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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>>> 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.
>>
>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>
> Though technically challenging, I've long believed that the best
> answer is to develop some system similar to Categories that could be
> used to flag content that is potentially objectionable on various
> grounds and then provide the tools to create filtered streams that
> remove that content.

That would good. We can't choose what should and should not be seen by
our readers without violating neutrality but there is nothing stopping
them choosing for themselves.