All concerned parties, be advised of my article [[Peyronie disease]].
My view is that the Wikipedia should not contain pornography, but nudity is okay. Some people may not be cool with the idea of looking at nudity, but they have just as much right to not "Click here to see image containing nudity" as they do to avoid other places where they'd see nudity (Playboy, porno sites, etc.) Nudity is okay because it describes how things really do look. Drawings should not be considered watered down photos. They're good at showing some details that may not be apparent in photographs. Photographs on the other hand, show reality. I think both are perfectly acceptable. Understanding that certain people are sensitive to seeing nudity, we should mask it behind a link. But we are not making an encyclopedia specifically for grade schools, and we are not making an encyclopedia for people who turn red at the site of genitalia. Individuals need to exercise control of their viewing habits, and schools and parents need to be aware of what children are surfing to. That's just not our job.
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I don't think we should have an actual photograph in this case. Just think what would be acceptable in schools (actually, a lot of wikipedia probably wouldn't be acceptable in schools, like its lack of "drugs are evil" stance, but this is much worse). I don't think photographs of genitalia belong in an encyclopedia, no matter how informative. Drawings would be a much better alternative.
*/sannse sannse@delphiforums.com/* wrote:
If they are copyright free (which would surprise me) a couple of them may be better choices than John's version. The left side images on the bottom two rows are informative without having the same "porn-like" feel of the earlier images. As Anthere said, they would still need to be linked with a warning rather than immediately visible. Personally I would still prefer a drawing, mostly for aesthetic reasons but also because I believe a drawing can be more informative in some situations.