Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things unacceptable?
Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor <simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Aryeh Gregor <simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons > and freely licensed sexual imagery > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:59 PM > Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't > censored because it allows pictures > of penises is fooling himself. Wikipedia is > absolutely censored from > images its editors find disgusting. > > <snip sexuality rant> > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > I think our efforts would be better focused making all > of our content better suited for re-usability by different > tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which > tastes need to be targeted. Rather than creating a mirror > ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing > stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of > the content. > > It would definitely be a good start to create a hierarchy > of > categories for the use of private parties who would like to > censor > their own Internet access, or that of those they have > responsibility > for. The way to go would be neutral designations > like > "Category:Pictures containing genitals", "Category:Pictures > containing > breasts", "Category:Depictions of Muhammad", and so > on. This strictly > adds value to the project. > > Then we would pick a set of categories to be blocked by > default. > Blocked images wouldn't be hidden entirely, just replaced > with a link > explaining why they were blocked. Clicking the link > would cause them > to display in place, and inline options would be provided > to show all > images in that category in the future (using preferences > for users, > otherwise cookies). Users could block any categories > of images they > liked from their profile. > > To begin with, we could preserve the status quo by > disabling only very > gory or otherwise really disgusting images by > default. More > reasonably, we could follow every other major website in > the developed > world, and by default disable display of any image > containing male or > female genitalia, or sex acts. Users who wanted the > images could, > again, get them with a single click, so there is no loss > of > information -- which is, after all, what we exist to > provide. > Wikipedia does not aim to push ideologies of sexual > liberation. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l