2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net>: >> This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of >> sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than >> any drawing could be. >> >> >> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would > prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is > used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated > in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is > incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium > of knowledge to the world. > > I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened > to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery, > we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her > school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace > (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the > barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia. > > I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a > manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the > Karma Sutra. > > Fred Bauder
Why shouldn't it be? Most humans engage in sexual practices of some kind or another, so I would think our content on sexual practices would be relevant to many of our readers. You suggest we should treat content on sexual practices differently to how we treat content on sporting practices because some of our readers may be minors. I am not going to dispute the cultural relativity of what is suitable for minors at the moment, but if we were to make the assumption that some content is not suitable for minors (or, more to the point, that because some content is considered unsuitable for minotrs, Wikipedia is being discouraged at school), isn't there a better solution than deleting content? For example, couldn't articles be tagged with a "this article details sexual practices which some readers may feel is not suitable for minors"? Articles with such a tag could be blocked in user preferences, or for school IP ranges at the request of the school. We could explain the tag at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia for schools]] and explain how it is used. I, personally, contend the premise that some content is inherently unsuitable for minors. It really comes down to what some sections of society consider unsuitable. For example, a Mormon parent's idea of what is unsuitable, may differ to a Protestant parent's idea of what is unsuitable - leaving alone the many possible non-Christian variations. The point is that "suitability" is culturally relative. Some parents may think it unsuitable at all to describe genital organs or reproduction, many would think it entirely suitable. If we are to honour removal/selective blocking of content on the grounds that it is sexual, should we also honour a Mormon's parent's requests to block the [[Joseph Smith]] article, which may give details that are unpalatable to Mormons? Should we selectively block articles relating to non-belief to honour parent's concerns as to what their children are exposed to? It is a very slippery slope. I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on that basis. -- Oldak Quill (oldakqu...@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l