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

[Mike.lifeguard]

Actually, I would argue that we shouldn't censor for principled reasons.
Supposing it were the case that we could safely censor only sexual
content with no slippery slope, we still shouldn't do so because it is
wrong regardless what the practical consequences may or may not be. That
said, a more utilitarian argument may be necessary where we have
contributors who reject these basic values.

-Mike

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 15:13 +0100, Thomas Dalton 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.
> 
>