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

[David Gerard]

2009/5/14 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
> 2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:

>> So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
>> the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
>> it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces
>> aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question entirely and the
>> answer should not be based on people being offended by images of them.

> Yes. Editing is censoring, therefore there is no such separate thing
> as censoring, therefore the decision to put a picture on
> [[Autofellatio]] (WARNING: contains photograph) is an editorial
> decision. Which it in fact was.


Hit "send" too soon - The point is that "disgusting" or "potentially
morally corrupting" or "sacreligious" have consistently been roundly
rejected as editorial criteria. So it doesn't matter if someone tries
to argue that editing is censorship, their editorial urge to do
something others would call censoring has *still* consistently been
roundly rejected.

As I said, the most likely way to get such an effort off the ground is
for someone to put together a filtered selection outside the live
working wiki.


- d.