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

Birgitte SB birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Fri May 15 13:33:59 UTC 2009

Your really didn't address my question.  Why do you think WMF resources are best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things unacceptable?  

Birgitte SB

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons  and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:59 PM
> Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't
> censored because it allows pictures
> of penises is fooling himself.  Wikipedia is
> absolutely censored from
> images its editors find disgusting. 
> <snip sexuality rant>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I think our efforts would be better focused making all
> of our content better suited for re-usability by different
> tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which
> tastes need to be targeted.  Rather than creating a mirror
> ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing
> stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of
> the content.
> It would definitely be a good start to create a hierarchy
> of
> categories for the use of private parties who would like to
> censor
> their own Internet access, or that of those they have
> responsibility
> for.  The way to go would be neutral designations
> like
> "Category:Pictures containing genitals", "Category:Pictures
> containing
> breasts", "Category:Depictions of Muhammad", and so
> on.  This strictly
> adds value to the project.
> Then we would pick a set of categories to be blocked by
> default.
> Blocked images wouldn't be hidden entirely, just replaced
> with a link
> explaining why they were blocked.  Clicking the link
> would cause them
> to display in place, and inline options would be provided
> to show all
> images in that category in the future (using preferences
> for users,
> otherwise cookies).  Users could block any categories
> of images they
> liked from their profile.
> To begin with, we could preserve the status quo by
> disabling only very
> gory or otherwise really disgusting images by
> default.  More
> reasonably, we could follow every other major website in
> the developed
> world, and by default disable display of any image
> containing male or
> female genitalia, or sex acts.  Users who wanted the
> images could,
> again, get them with a single click, so there is no loss
> of
> information -- which is, after all, what we exist to
> provide.
> Wikipedia does not aim to push ideologies of sexual
> liberation.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


More information about the foundation-l mailing list