[WikiEN-l] So, why do we provide porn?

The Mangoe the.mangoe at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 03:59:50 UTC 2008

Um, yeah. Just this morning I was trying to fix up something involving
insect mouth parts, and in clicking on "Labium", I was treated to a
full color photo of female genitalia, up close and personal. There are
a lot of booby-trapped links like that; one wonders how many
ordinarily innocent phrases lead to similar surprises because the
sexual fetish community-- and therefore Wikipedia-- has co-opted the

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/22/08, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > I'm sorry, but what sets this category apart from any other, say for
>  >  instance [[Category:Dogs in clothing]] (at
>  >  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dogs_in_clothing ). Commons
>  Here are some things:
>   - It's NSFW. I accidentally clicked on "masturbating amy" at work,
>  thinking it couldn't possibly be...
>   - It's not safe for kids. Apparently some libraries already ban
>  wikipedia. Making institutions unwilling to use our resource is not
>  helping spread knowledge.
>  - I would happily reorganise a "dogs in clothing" category while my
>  girlfirend was watching.
>  - It's bad for our reputation to be known as a source of pornography.
>  It's not bad for our reputation to be known as a source of dogs in
>  clothing photos.
>  >  is simply a collection of free media representing different aspects of
>  >  human life. And not to get on a high horse or anything, but there is
>  >  absolutely nothing shameful about female masturbation. It's a
>  >  perfectly healthy part of human life, it should be encouraged, and
>  >  information about it should be distributed as widely as possible.
>  Yes, you are introducing a moral argument which is probably best kept
>  out. There's obviously nothing wrong having photos of "shameful"
>  topics (think of political events, massacres etc).
>  >  In addition, three of the images are fine works of art (the Klimt one
>  >  is spectacular and the Japanese one is mezmerizing) and another one is
>  >  fascinating illustration, a true picture of its time.
>  I think the illustrations - particularly historical - are ok. They
>  probably pass the tests listed above.
>  >  Frankly, I find your position prudish and counter-productive with
>  >  respect for what we are trying to achieve. We shouldn't censor based
>  >  on morality.
>  Heh, it's not often I get called prudish. I'm not quite sure what you
>  mean by "censoring based on morality", because I don't think I'm
>  proposing censoring, and I'm not bringing morality into anything. I'm
>  suggesting that storing and making available porn is not good for our
>  mission.
>  Steve
>  _______________________________________________
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list