[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

[Mike Godwin]

Tim Starling writes:

It's a proposal which only really makes sense when analysed from the
> libertarian end of this debate. It's not a compromise with the rest of
> the spectrum.
>

That's correct. That was intentional. A libertarian proposal that attempts
to adhere to NPOV and reduces general noise about censorship, allowing us to
focus on images that are actually used, won't please organizations like Fox
News or people like Larry Sanger who are determined to censor or destroy
Wikipedia. But my suggestion wasn't derived from ideology so much as
practicality. (I'm not an ideological libertarian.)

"So to return to Mike's proposal: it's only the libertarians who value
educational value above moral hazard, and they're not the ones you've
got to compromise with. To a conservative, a claim of educational
value does not negate a risk of moral turpitude. By optionally hiding
images which have a claim of educational value, however dubious the
claim, you please nobody."

That's a feature, not a bug. If there is a compromise that "pleases" some
factions but not others, it's not exactly a compromise, is it?

My point is that is nice to be able to say, with regard to a disputed image,
that it is used in an article, or 10 articles, or 100 articles across
projects. Being able to say such a thing is a useful answer to a precise
subset of criticisms, but it does not purport to be an answer to all
criticisms. So while I appreciate your general taxonomy of political views,
I think it is grounded in a mistaken assumption about the purpose of what I
posted.


--Mike