[WikiEN-l] Re: Objectionable material

[Ryan Delaney]

Skyring wrote:

>I appreciate both positions, but in the meantime, we live in the real
>world where some parents and teachers and clergymen are going to apply
>pressure to stop their children or students or congregations from
>using an online encyclopedia that contains material that they consider
>objectionable, regardless of how sensitively it is presented or how
>much we might wish for there to be no censorship at all.
>  
>
I really don't think that the best way to deal with closed-mindedness 
and dogmatism is to surrender to it. Of course, that carries its own 
special risk, because we might end up being dogmatic in our response. 
They key here, it seems, is to emphasize the Wiki philosophy of good 
faith, openness, and /respect/ that all people have it in them to be 
mature and responsible /without /having someone to tell them what they 
can and can't know and what they can and can't look at.

Still, some people just can't be reasoned with. Some people will object 
to any site on the internet that isn't dedicated to our Lord and Savior. 
Others will be disgusted that we fairly consider perspectives on 
intelligent design, and write us off as hacks. That these people will 
boycott Wikipedia, I think, is unfortunate, but not something we need to 
be concerning ourselves with.

>These sort of people tend to be firm in their convictions and vocal in
>presenting their opinions, and if there is a picture of autofellatio
>or a gigantic anus in WP, then they will find it and use it against
>us. I rather think that they will not be swayed by the arguments noted
>above. Just how tasteful and educational is a picture of a naked guy
>sucking himself? It's hardly Michaelangelo's David, is it?
>
No it isn't, and we do have to draw the line somewhere. Where that line 
is drawn right now is loosely analagous to a "rational basis" review; if 
the reviewer can think of some possible legitimate use for the image, we 
keep it. Only images that have no possible encyclopedic usefulness (such 
as shock images, blatant pornography, and nonsense) get deleted. 
Realistically, I don't see anything wrong with that paradigm. We can't 
let the fears and dogmas of the most extreme and conservative people in 
society become our own fears and dogmas, too.

- Ryan