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

[George Herbert]

My two cents:

I don't think we have external pressure to do this.  Web filtering companies
which filter by keyword are aware Wikipedia contains a lot of those naughty
keywords.  Anything they think they need to do about it they already do.
OTRS hasn't been seeing parental complaints, we haven't seen negative
coverage in the press, etc.

We don't make a huge deal about it, but I think that "the world at large"
knows what we do and is OK with it.

The internal enwiki community is very anti-censorship, in particular
anti-think-of-the-children censorship.  It's one of the core NOT listings.

I understand that we have many who disagree.  But I think that the community
has spoken, and that the Foundation wouldn't do any good interfering, and
that there's no cause to.  If the community were threatening its own good or
long term survival by being that uncensored a case could be made for
intervention.  But we seem to have found a working line that essentially
everyone agrees to that pedophillia and child porn are out, the rest is all
basically ok, and that these limits are legally and socially defensible
internally and externally.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com