[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Fri May 15 19:55:06 UTC 2009
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was 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: Friday, May 15, 2009, 2:17 PM
> --- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com>
> > From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored
> (was 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: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:46 PM
> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM,
> > Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > That said I am certain that there are articles
> > Wikipedia that are censored, just as there are biased
> > articles and false articles. Wikipedia has never
> > perfect in the application of it's ideals.
> > Does that imply that you believe [[Goatse.cx]] should
> > fact have an
> > above-the-fold illustration of its subject matter, or
> > not? If not,
> > how is that any different from [[Penis]]? And if so
> > . . well, I
> > think you're in the minority here.
> In all honesty, I don't really know. I generally find
> the argument over non-free content to be not worth having,
> because it takes the long-range mission out of the picture.
> I am frankly, apathetic about whether Wikipedia even has an
> *article* on goatse.cx and other internet memes. I wouldn't
> create the article or add to it. But I wouldn't argue to
> remove the image if we had either.
> I would much rather formulate guidelines over the articles
> the are more inherently meaningful to more people.
> Like STD's or even [[Kama Sutra]]. Then evaluate
> [[Goatse.cx]] by those guidelines and see where it
> falls. I think focusing on what is meaningful rather
> than sensational will leads to better results.
> Birgitte SB
To be clear here. I don't want to look at goatse. However I came to the conclusion back in 2006 that Birgitte SB's gut reaction as to what is acceptable is an invalid criteria to use for what is included on Wikipedia. And while there is strong consensus as to what is acceptable for Wikipedia to include in the face of religious or political feelings. The situation on sexual sensitivities is less solidified. Until it is solidified I don't know what criteria should be used to make a decision on goatse. I do know that I don't want the criteria to evaluate articles covering important information to be based on feelings about goatse.
More information about the foundation-l