[Foundation-l] On problems in commons

[marcos]

Well, I understand you, but I think you don´t understand me...First i 
write "the law"...If the laws of your country prohibit certain images, 
wikimedia cannot go in opposition to these laws ... they will be able to
 be more just or fewer jousts, but  does not correspond to us to decide 
on it.

Nobody, certainly, speaks here about scientific images, 
though well it is true that there are persons to whom the image of a 
penis can look like an offensive, but it is not this problem.

I 
do not believe that there exists doubt that certain contents are not acceptable.
 The sexual relations adult - minor are not  acceptable, and it is like 
that in a
 widespread majority of countries of the world and of peoples of the 
world. 

Probably it would be a good idea to make a kind of place reserved to deposit 
there all these images, having good care of warning clearly to the whole
 world of which to enter this place could be opposite to the laws of 
certain countries, that the content can offend the spectator and that 
Wikimedia is not played the role responsible for the contents not of 
whom sees them.

And not, the common sense can never be confused 
with the censorship. For the former Romans, the censorship was not any 
more than to form a judgment of a work or other one sews. For us it is 
something upside-down, it is to manipulate the truth in order that 
others could not know her.

But not the whole censorship is wrong,
 since not the whole knowledge is worth being known. In fact, so much in
 wikipedia as in commons already it is censured ... it was
 done before this problem and it will continue done .... so, perhaps is 
not it a censorship to erase certain contents for considering them to be
 irrelevant? Or certain images for which they do not expire with the 
legislation on copy-right of the country in question?

I also believe strongly in the right to choose, but I believe even stronger that not the whole world has the same aptitudes to choose ... the entire content of wikimedia is accessible to the whole world ... I have two daughters minors ... I would not like that they were agreeing to see images that are not prepared to see. Before the right to choose debit to there have been an education that it teaches to choose.

--- El dom, 9/5/10, Excirial <wp.excirial at gmail.com>
 escribió:

De: Excirial 
<wp.excirial at gmail.com>
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] On problems 
in commons
Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Fecha: domingo, 9 de mayo, 
2010 23:47

*Please, read good. Common 
Sense. Do you think it´s of common sense delete
this?...*

Common
 sense is not
Common<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sense#Use_common_sense>.
In
 the Islamic world depictions of Muhammad are considered to be highly
offensive,
 akin to western views on child pornography. I am not offended in
the
 least by images of muhammed, but other people are. By your rationale we
would
 have to remove every image or content that might be considered
offensive
 due to it being a matter of respect. It would mean that every
pornographic
 diagram, drawing or image would have to be removed. We would
have to
 remove the Muhammad category. We would have to clean our medical
pages
 which contain photo's of certain diseases that can be considered
gross.
 We would have to remove logo's from pages on secret societies as
these
 societies often consider those logo's "Secret". In fact, there is
little
 to no content that is not considered offensive by at least part of
the
 population.

Therefor we include
 relevant images as long as they are not against the law.
Images with
 a high level of "Offensiveness" to a large group of people
should be
 handled with care, but not evaded. One persons "common sense
removal"
 is another persons censorship. I strongly believe in the right to
choose
 - we should not enforce people to look at content they do not wish to
see.
 But equally we should not remove content merely on the basis that
someone
 doesn't like it.

~Excirial