Richard Grevers wrote:
I don't - although if their inclusion results in W being banned from schools etc then it becomes debatable as to whether inclusion is in Wikipedia's best interests.
I think that's right. And I think LittleDan's concerns are legitimate, quite apart from any questions of censorship. The question is: how do we present information that's potentially "hot" in a fashion that's NPOV and educational and tasteful, and in the case in point, would a drawing be better than a photo?
I have certainly in my day seen photos of genetalia that were tasteful and "medical", as well as photos that were tasteless, as well as photos that were tasteful and erotic. As with any form of expression, there's a thoughtful and responsible way to express what we want to express, and we should do that.
Well in the "free" United States since recent regulations, if someone posted information that certain agencies decided were an aid to terrorists, could not those agencies arrest Jimbo for refusing to disclose information on the user who posted it?
Not that it's really relevant right now, but I take the very rare position among libertarians of finding that the Patriot Act provisions that you're referring to are not nearly as draconian as most media outlets and civil libertarins make them out to be. It's not a good law, but the changes that it made are much less than most people realize.
I'll post more about this if people are interested.
--Jimbo