[Wikipedia-l] Autofellatio

[Anthere]

--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:54:17 +0200, Anthere
> <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Many months ago, we made it impossible to link to
> external images,
> > because we were fighting to avoid the goatse. 
> > Now, several wikipedias are dirtied by the
> pornographic images available
> > on the english wikipedia.
> > So, I suggest that
> > * either we all agree to share common images,
> since they can impact us
> > and in this case, I would like that a common vote
> is held to decide the
> > deletion of this image from the english wikipedia
> > * or we agree that no local projects should be
> submitted to the
> > editorial choices made by other projects and
> redirections between
> > projects should be cancelled
> > * or we find a filtering solution, so that certain
> images not welcome to
> > other projects may not be redirected.
> > 
> > In case of all sensible images such as the
> autofellatio, it should be
> > the project choice whether to display it or not.
> And I think the
> > multiplication of complaints on the topic requires
> to think about a
> > viable solution for all of us.
> 
> Let me suggest the correct course of action:
> 
> If your interest is to censor encyclopedic content
> on any wikimedia
> wikipedia, then your goals are at odds with the
> goals of the
> foundation. 

I am not exactly sure who is "you" in your sentence.

Unless I am entirely mistaken somewhere, I was elected
to be a representative of editors.
Now, I have three different wikipedia editors
contacting me to raise this issue which is important
to them, and asking me to help them find the right
solution, most approved by the community.

So, there are two options
* either I accordingly receive their complaints and
report them so that a solution be found and editors
happy again
* or I just tell them to mind their own business and
find a solution all by themselves.

I tend to think the first case fit with my role.

Second, I am well aware some editors are supporting
keeping these images, for whatever reasons. I support
keeping them WHEN they are informative, which all the
veneral diseases definitly are. I do not think this
autofellatio image is, and am quite glad to replace it
directly online with Rama's drawing.

Lastly, whatever the decision is, keeping the image or
not keeping the image, this image has NOTHING to do on
a user talk page.

 
Because you do not share the same
> goals, you should fork
> and produce your own project with censorship among
> it's goals.

Who is "you" ???

May I suggest that the english wikipedia is NOT the
Foundation. And that if I recognise the rights of the
english wikipedia to decide itself what is good taste
from what is bad taste, I do not recognise its right
to decide alone what is censorship and what is not
censorship. And I do not recognise its right to decide
what should be on all the other projects from what
should be absolutely. 

Asking that porn pictures be not displayed largely on
user talk page is frankly not a question of
censorship, it is a question of civility.

And when editors are complaining of large vandalism
displaying porn pictures on their talk page, I think
it would be good manner to recognise there is a
problem and find a solution to it.


> If you continue to endorse censorship you are
> harming the project. 
> Please allow those who want to share knowledge
> freely the ability to
> do so on wikipedia by taking your censorship
> someplace else.

I admire your ability to discuss an issue. I report 3
different wikipedias complaints about large scale
vandalisme, and your answer is "fork".
 
> The claim that pages are somehow 'dirtied'  by a
> mere image speaks
> strongly about your lack of neutral perspective.

There is currently strong support for deleting this
image.

And yes, if I find my user page replaced by a man
sucking his cock, forgive me, but I find this to be
dirty.


> Wiki vandalism is unfortunate, but it is not a
> sufficient cause to
> reduce the available knowledge and the free exchange
> of information to
> mankind. It is not an excuse for censorship.

I do not think a talk page being replaced by
pornographic pictures will reduce world knowledge. And
I do not think a man sucking is cock being limited on
one article only rather than thousand of pages will be
a bad blow in free exchange of information.

However, I do think that such reactions to other
people opinions is a bad blow in wikilove that we
should all try to respect.
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/