3 ms·
For what it's worth: while I won't have a temper tantrum either way, I'm not OK with my kids seeing porn in Wikipedia. I think the project is more useful if it
by ErrantX 16y ago
For what it's worth: while I won't have a temper tantrum either way, I'm not OK with my kids seeing porn in Wikipedia. I think the project is more useful if it is making a good-faith effort to limit graphic sexual images.
Have an upvote.
The thing is this; clearly a picture of a nude woman is appropriate on the "Woman" page. Sexual intercourse could reasonably be depicted (though there is probably no need to have an actually obscene image that gets across "having sex"). Even close ups of genitals would pass as educational.
But there was something of a growing "Pornography" problem on Commons. And there is a big difference between Porn and images of genitals (or nudity). There seems no reason for:
- more than one depiction of porn, for the porn article (and even then it's reason seems stretched)
- more than one good close up of a [healthy] vagina (there are - or were - a load)
And so on.. as you say - it is an Encyclopedia.
- _delirium 16y agoWhy shouldn't a comprehensive encyclopedia include multiple articles about different kinds of sexuality, different varieties of pornography, etc.? How to illustrate them we can argue about, but it seems strange to argue, as Wales seems to be coming close to at some point, that, say, BDSM isn't an encyclopedic subject. That, despite the fact that many people have gotten their PhDs writing about it, and there are dozens of scholarly books studying it (it makes up a large part of Michel Foucault's writing, for example).
- ErrantX 16y agoWell yes - clearly they should have an article. I'm not sure I suggested they shouldn't. (if you note I was mostly talking about commons)