[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari at wikimedia.org> wrote:

From: Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari at wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28


On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
>
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
>
> - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
> be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
> that they should therefore be ignored.

Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with 
nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems 
quite valid.

Ryan Kaldari
Quite. 
I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. 
That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not censored. 
That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded. 
That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
And so on.
Andreas