[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and "indecent" content

[geni]

2008/12/23 Thomas Larsen <larsen.thomas.h at gmail.com>:
> I believe that the clause was originally written with the
> intent of giving readers fair warning about what they might run into,
> not for justifying the inclusion of all types of material. Wikipedia
> claims to be an encyclopedia; well, according to established standards
> of traditional scholarship, this picture would not be displayed in any
> "true" encyclopedia—at least, I don't see Encyclopædia Britannica
> including it anytime soon, and Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger has
> already stated that the image won't be appearing on Citizendium (see
> http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/11/citizendium-safe-for-virgins/).

A traditional encyclopedia would no have an article on the album
because it really isn't that well known so from that POV your point is
untestable. Still lets look and a better known album cover with
similar issues. Blind Faith (album). While I'm not aware of any
encyclopedia talking about the album the cover appears in Dorling
Kindersleys 100 Best Album Covers: The Stories Behind the Sleeves. So
it appears that that is the kind of image traditional information
sources include.



> The argument from the standpoint that the picture has not yet been
> declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in
> Wikipedia, seems even weaker than the previous one. It hinges on a
> critical point—the assumption that if content is legal, Wikipedia can
> and _should_ include it. This is incorrect, as I have stated and
> justified above: Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and according
> to this standard it should only include certain types of content.
> Legality, therefore, can only define material that must be _excluded_;
> it does not dictate what should be _included_.

You are confusing a single thread of an argument with a complete
argument it. The it isn't illegal argument is used in conjunction with
other arguments (a quick glance at how much the article talks about
the image shows that it's inclusion is encyclopedic).

> Some users have expressed worry over the precedent that might be set
> if the picture was deleted or removed from the articles it appears
> in—"Next," they say, "it'll be images of Muhammed." Well, I'm not
> going to argue here for the inclusion or exclusion of images of
> Muhammed; but I will say that, unlike images of Muhammed, the Virgin
> Killer album cover image and other pictures like it are considered
> indecent, obscene, taboo, and/or distasteful by _general people_ (as
> opposed to radical religious fundamentalists, free speech advocates,
> commercial stakeholders, et cetera) in practically all human cultures.

Prove it.


> Pictures like these can be described using words, and they do not have
> to be shown in all of their gory detail—personally, I have not viewed
> the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, yet I have learnt
> of its general content through what has been said about it.

I doubt it.

>Should
> Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia and reaches millions of
> people daily—many, if not _most_, of them school students—really be
> distributing images such as the one that prompted the IWF ban?

In this case yes.

-- 
geni