[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and "indecent" content

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Thomas Larsen
<larsen.thomas.h at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
[snip]
> I've heard two main arguments in favour of keeping the specific Virgin
> Killer picture, and similar images, so far. The first position pivots
> on the clause in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (which is
> official Wikipedia policy) that states that "Wikipedia is not
> censored"; the second is based on the argument that the picture has
> not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be
> included in Wikipedia.
>
> The argument from the standpoint that Wikipedia is not censored seems
> to be easily refuted, at least to me. Wikipedia claims to be, first
> and foremost, an _encyclopedia_; thus, some types of material are
[snip]

You've missed a primary argument which your first counter-argument
arguably supports:

Actually seeing the image is arguably critical to having a nuanced
understanding of the debate about the image. As an encyclopedia
Wikipedia believes it has an obligation to try to be maximally
informative.

I can state that having seen the image caused me to have an entirely
different view on the past (and now current, I suppose) controversy
than if I had not seen it.  Wikipedia allowed me to form my own
opinion in a way which would have simply not been possible otherwise.
In the Wikipedia vision of an encyclopedia that is an ideal outcome.
(There are other ideals of an encyclopedia out there: Some
encyclopedias would prefer to give you a single pre-digested experts
view, WP prefers to let you make up your own mind where possible).

I don't think too many would argue that this trumps all other
considerations, but the most obvious trumping considerations such as
the image being illegal or the image actually causing harm to someone
are not especially well substantiated.