[Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

[Anthony]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Excirial <wp.excirial at gmail.com> wrote:

> Educational and inappropriate are not static terms, as the definition can
> vary between groups of people.


I disagree with this.


> Ergo, take the group "pre-puberty kids".
> Plenty of parents would find it objectionable if their children would
> encounter any nude material, even if it is not remotely sexual. Based upon
> that definition we would have to remove every image we have that depicts a
> reproductive organs, including but not limited to photographs, diagrams and
> paintings.


Sounds like a bad definition, then.  "Plenty of parents would find it
objectionable" is a strawman.  I don't believe anyone here has claimed that
this is a sufficient grounds for removal.  I certainly haven't.

In fact, I haven't even said that the Wikimedia Foundation should strive to
create a resource which is useful for families.  If that is not the audience
you wish to target, then by all means don't target them.  But then, don't
target them.  Don't put Jimmy Wales up on your banner ads talking about how
you're creating an educational resource "for the child in Africa".  Don't
claim you're creating "a free encyclopedia for every single person on the
planet".  Leave that to someone else to do, and to do right.

Referring back to my previous response - in that reply i mentioned the
> gangrene page, which contains some rather gross images. Fit for children to
> stare at?


To stare at?  Let's ask a more reasonable question.  Is it appropriate for a
parent to show to this article to their child, assuming their child is of an
appropriate age to learn about the topic in the first place.

But let's not ask that question of this particular page.  Let's develop a
set of principles that allows us to answer it in general.


> Many parents would answer that with a firm no.


Once again, I don't care what "many parents would answer".  The question is
what ought we be creating.

If you don't think that's the kind of question that can be answered
objectively, then let's just end this whole conversation right now.  There's
no point in discussing what type of material ought to be distributed by the
WMF if you think there's no right answer to that question.

If you do think there is a right answer to that question, then by all means
let's start discussing that, and not what "many parents would answer".


> Ask yourself - why would any child be at the gangrene or sexual organ page,
> if not for their own curiosity? Explicit images tend to be placed on pages
> that children should not be at in the first place.


Wait a second.  You're saying that a child should not learn about gangrene
or sexual organs?

Sounds like you're the prude, not me.