On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 01:00, Anthere wrote:
Some parents and some schools may prefer not to let the kids see nudity. It is perhaps up to us to give them the ability to give access or not to give access to religious topics/political topics/sexuality topics...but it is not up to us to decide for them what they should do. By restricting information offered, one decide for others instead of letting people decide for themselves. Very bad.
Hear, hear!
While I'm not convinced that the particular image under discussion is the most appropriate, _some_ image is necessary to make that particular article complete and informative. An article with no photo will be limited in education value, and an article with no illustration at all will be sorely crippled.
When it comes to censorship and Wikipedia, there are a few things to remember:
* The GFDL license means that it's redistributable and modifiable. Groups who may be interested in providing a "safe", "fact-checked", or "family-friendly" version of Wikipedia and promote it to censor-happy schools are free to do this. The main Wikipedia site doesn't *have* to cater directly to the censorware-limited market in order to be available there.
* Erik and other have advocated building a "certification team" system directly into Wikipedia, such that groups or individuals could verify certain versions of various articles as being good (for whatever their criteria are), and people could choose to view only the articles marked by some particular group. This could be useful here as well.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)