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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com>:
> And? What's wrong with pleasing the parents? I would rather do that
> and have children be able to access all the good content Wikipedia
> has than have their parents just make Wikipedia off-limits because of
> a small subset of the overall content.

Nothing is wrong with it in principle, but I think we need to be clear
about why we would be doing this. Would we be doing it because *we*
think children should be protected from these images or because we
want to please parents who think that? While there is no difference to
what we would actually do, our reasons would be relevant from a PR
point of view.

>> The technical implementation is easy, deciding which images to hide
>> like that is impossible.
>
> Is it? Blanket-labeling all images depicting nudity as "inappropriate" would
> be pretty straightforward and would alleviate the majority of concerns.

If you label nude images as inappropriate, are you also going to label
images of Muhammad as inappropriate? Or any of the numerous other
things that people find offensive? At the moment we can respond to
calls for the removal of such images with a simple "Wikipedia is not
censored". If you start censoring it, you then have the choose who it
is and isn't acceptable to offend, and I really don't think we should
be doing that.