[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and "indecent" content

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Larsen
<larsen.thomas.h at gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether the image is obscene or not is irrelevant;
[snip]

I don't agree.

In general images which are excessively shocking (I'd argue that
shocking is a strict superset of 'obscene') diminish the educational
value of Wikipedia: People will miss our brilliant prose if they are
too busy gawking at (or trying to escape) a shocking image.

There is an editorial need to make some trade-off there balancing
informative value vs possible revulsion, interest piquing vs
distraction, and 'sum of all knowledge' vs being unable to educate
because the product is widely banned.  The possibility that some image
will be consider obscene by some communities is a relevant factor.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Thomas Larsen
<larsen.thomas.h at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is seeing the image really critical? I personally don't think so. For
> one, I haven't looked at the image myself, and have no intention of
> doing so, as I noted in my post.

I, as someone who can actually speak from the experience of seeing the
image, think it is highly relevant.

> Isn't it possible to just describe
> the picture textually, without actually showing it?

Not really.  To be blunt and unfair: A major part of the controversy
is that some people see the image to be some sexualized image of a
minor, and other people look at it see nothing sexual about it and
think the first group are probably closet pedophiles.

It's basically impossible to give a textual depiction of the image
which is both specific and neutral enough to actually allow people to
make the above decision on their own.  The information provided by
pictures and text is sometimes just too orthogonal.

Perhaps the value provided by the reader being able to make up their
own mind is out-weighted by other factors… I think that might be a
good discussion, but I really do believe that there is a clear value.

> More importantly,
> is showing the image actually scholarly? My main argument against
> inclusion is that it isn't.

I think we can answer this part fairly objectively: What is done for
images where there is no controversy?  What would be done if the
controversy were only the treatment of the child and not the image
itself?

I think in both these cases the answer is clear: In mediums where the
image can be included it would usually be included in scholarly works.
  Our own coverage of visual topics includes extensive illustration,
many journals included color images even though authors often have to
pay fees to cover color images. At English Wikipedia we compromise one
of our core principles (free content licensing purity) in order to
excerpt from commercial works for illustrative purposes.

So on the question of whether visual illustrations often have
scholarly value in excess of non-trivial costs? I believe the answer
is an uncontested and unambiguous yes.

In the question of if this particular image has scholarly value, there
appears to be wide consensus that it does and I'd add that as someone
who hasn't seen it you are in a somewhat weakened position to raise a
serious argument that it doesn't. (Though I'll conced that as someone
who hasn't looked at it, or won't admit publicly to looking, and still
is publicly arguing against its use that actually seeing it would
probably not change your position on it.)

On the question of the value of that image offsetting the costs of
that image?  I'm less convinced that particular argument is a
clear-cut issue… but that isn't a discussion that we can reasonably
have if you're holding firm to the issue that the image has no value
at all.  I think English Wikipedia isn't adequately considering the
cost benefit trade-off of shocking image generally at this time. (In
particular I think the slow trend words using photographs of sex acts
rather than equally informative but less potentially-offensive
drawings is ill considered…)