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

[David Goodman]

I think if anything the anti-sexual fetish people have dominated the
project. Many articles on this range of subjects have been deleted or
stripped of content. All articles on sexual acts are illustrated by
drawings not photographs, even when good free photographs are
available.
But at least anatomy is anatomy, insect or human.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, The Mangoe <the.mangoe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>  phrase.
>
>
>
>  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
>  >
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  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
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG