5 ms·

The image you mention here only becomes porn-like due to its exposure to the non-medical mind. The image itself may not have been intended to be porn. His disap

The image you mention here only becomes porn-like due to its exposure to the non-medical mind. The image itself may not have been intended to be porn. His disappearance could be linked to simple fear from the irrational. There must be an ethical and rational balance over the incredibly important aspects of research and science concerning the development of the young human. Irrational social fear relating to any form of sexual development in the young can polarize legitimate scientific study in regards to youth psychology and physiology. At some point one can cross from critical (and RATIONAL) exposition of credible threats and crimes to an absurd witch hunt which puts pedophiles behind every tree, image, or serious study. Society already has a difficult enough time grasping how to cope with the sexual development of its young while at the same time horrified over scientific/medical exposition of said development.

timwiseman 16y ago
You make some interesting points. But let me respectfully point out that the vast majority of users of wikipedia have a"non-medical mind". Even the vast majority of people looking specifically for medical information on wikipedia are not and will never become professionals in the medical field. It is probably best in terms of both using an abundance of caution in staying on the right side of the law and in keeping the image away from people that would see it in a non-medical light to keep things like that off of wikipedia. They may be perfectly fine on sites focused specifically on medical information and targetting primarily medical professionals, but wikipedia is not such a place.
goodside 16y ago
You can argue all you want that the laws are not just. I agree fully. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether it's reasonable to expect the Foundation to expose themselves to (possibly unjust) prosecution by displaying images that they believe may be illegal or immoral. If they were facing criminal charges at this moment, I would be the first to say that they have done nothing wrong, but you cannot fault them for not wanting to risk the future of Wikipedia by fighting a legal battle (using donations provided by people who thought they were just helping support an encyclopedia) against laws that you and I think are unjust. If you feel strongly to the contrary, I submit to you the following challenge. I will tell you how to obtain the image in question, provided you agree to display the image publicly on web space you own and control, in perpetuity until its removal is requested by either your hosting provider or legal authorities, with text below that states: - Your full, legal name and basic contact information (e-mail address is fine) - That the image was presented to you by sources unknown with the assertion that it depicts a 13-year-old girl - That you believe the photograph was taken for the purposes of legitimate scientific study, but you admit there is at least some possibility that it was taken with the intent of pornographic distribution - Any other information or disclaimers you think are relevant Let me know if this works for you. If so, you're more principled than I am.

timwiseman 16y ago

You make some interesting points. But let me respectfully point out that the vast majority of users of wikipedia have a"non-medical mind". Even the vast majority of people looking specifically for medical information on wikipedia are not and will never become professionals in the medical field. It is probably best in terms of both using an abundance of caution in staying on the right side of the law and in keeping the image away from people that would see it in a non-medical light to keep things like that off of wikipedia. They may be perfectly fine on sites focused specifically on medical information and targetting primarily medical professionals, but wikipedia is not such a place.

goodside 16y ago

You can argue all you want that the laws are not just. I agree fully. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether it's reasonable to expect the Foundation to expose themselves to (possibly unjust) prosecution by displaying images that they believe may be illegal or immoral. If they were facing criminal charges at this moment, I would be the first to say that they have done nothing wrong, but you cannot fault them for not wanting to risk the future of Wikipedia by fighting a legal battle (using donations provided by people who thought they were just helping support an encyclopedia) against laws that you and I think are unjust. If you feel strongly to the contrary, I submit to you the following challenge. I will tell you how to obtain the image in question, provided you agree to display the image publicly on web space you own and control, in perpetuity until its removal is requested by either your hosting provider or legal authorities, with text below that states: - Your full, legal name and basic contact information (e-mail address is fine) - That the image was presented to you by sources unknown with the assertion that it depicts a 13-year-old girl - That you believe the photograph was taken for the purposes of legitimate scientific study, but you admit there is at least some possibility that it was taken with the intent of pornographic distribution - Any other information or disclaimers you think are relevant Let me know if this works for you. If so, you're more principled than I am.