[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[Risker]

On 30 September 2011 12:06, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> > --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari<rkaldari at wikimedia.org>  wrote:
> >
> > From: Ryan Kaldari<rkaldari at wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
> judgement, and image filters
> > To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28
> >
> >
> > On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >> This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
> >>
> >> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
> >>
> >> - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
> >> be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
> >> that they should therefore be ignored.
> > Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
> > nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems
> > quite valid.
> >
> > Ryan Kaldari
> > Quite.
> > I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of
> a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to
> include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored.
> > That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it
> should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is
> not censored.
> > That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED
> requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently
> beheaded.
> > That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none
> of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the
> images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
> > And so on.
> > Andreas
> >
> I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that
> there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate
> Illustration for the subject. <snip>


No, I think he understood it just fine. I have seen similar arguments in
several places on various projects: not just that it could be acceptable,
but that there is a duty to include such information in articles that
overrides editorial judgment, regardless of quality, source or other
factors.

Risker