[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:12 PM,  <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think you are confused. It is not a POV not to display images by
> default if those images can be accessed by a simple mouse click, it is
> simple good manners. For example I may want to read about 'Tribute
> pictures':
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cum%20tribute
>
> it doesn't mean to say that I want to look at some guy's spooge over a
> picture of the woman next door.
>
> And as I said earlier just because I'm reading about the Rawandan
> geonicide doesn't mean that I want to see images of mutilated bodies.
> And were I a Muslim I ought to be able to read about images of Mohammed
> without seeing images of him burning in hell.
>
> Of course I may wish to see all such images and so long as I can should
> I so desire then it is not censorship nor it a violation of NPOV.

And what about words? Do you think that one devoted homophobic
Christian would be willing to see [relevant] citation inside of some
general article that "Jesus was gay"?

If it is not acceptable to someone to see pornographic content, it is
highly possible that to that person is not acceptable to have
possibility to read educational materials about sexuality. Should we
put all of those content out of "moderate Wikipedia"?

I am not saying that we shouldn't deal with it, but talking about
"moderate Wikipedia" and censoring just images is oversimplification
of the matter. There are tons of more controversial material all over
Wikimedia projects, than just images of humans having sex. (Is
depiction of mosquitoes having sex also pornography? And what about
apes? Zoophilia?)