On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/5/14 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>: >> 2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>: > >>> So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of >>> the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship, >>> it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl necklaces >>> aren't encyclopaedic, then that is another question entirely and the >>> answer should not be based on people being offended by images of them. > >> Yes. Editing is censoring, therefore there is no such separate thing >> as censoring, therefore the decision to put a picture on >> [[Autofellatio]] (WARNING: contains photograph) is an editorial >> decision. Which it in fact was. > > > Hit "send" too soon - The point is that "disgusting" or "potentially > morally corrupting" or "sacreligious" have consistently been roundly > rejected as editorial criteria. So it doesn't matter if someone tries > to argue that editing is censorship, their editorial urge to do > something others would call censoring has *still* consistently been > roundly rejected. > > As I said, the most likely way to get such an effort off the ground is > for someone to put together a filtered selection outside the live > working wiki. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages. A simple "this image may be inappropriate (show/show all from now on)" button would go a long way and would be ridiculously easy to implement. The hard part is convincing enwiki that they're not always right. -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
