I agree about a penis not being obscene, but it's unfortunately
commonly used as a shock picture, for vandalism. But of course, if it
wasn't there, they'd just upload it for the vandalism, so no problem.
What really bugs me is when people screw up pictures to make them
"less offensive". This means making it black and white, blurring out
parts or all of the picture, making the thumbnail 10px and at the
bottom of the page where nobody could possible see it, etc.
On 8/17/05, Theresa Knott <theresaknott(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/17/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
That's a pretty ugly discussion, but reading
over their (somewhat
misguided) page does bring up one possible addition to the discussion
on "inappropriate" images which I didn't see raised before.
Namely, if the English Wiki servers are hosted in a U.S. state, then
the site does, if I am not mistaken, fall under various laws about the
distribution of "obscene" images to minors. "Obscene" is of course a
subject term, in the legal realm as well as here, but there is some
precedent which could allow one to make such decisions.
Well I'm making a big assumption here. But I'm going to assume that
Florida is a reasonable state with reasonable laws on obscenity. If
that is the case then we simple shouldn't have any images that are
obscene.
Wikipedia is an encylopedia not a pornshop.
For example. I do not believe that the picture of an erect penis on
the penis article is obscene. It it encylopedic and entirely
appropriate for minors, and I cannot believe that the state of Florida
would think otherwise. _If_ we have any pornographic pictures, and we
do have a lot of pics of pornstars, I haven't checked them all but
it's certainly possible that someone might upload a pornographic image
of one of them we should simplr delete them as innapropriate for an
encylopedia.
Theresa
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
signature