I would prefer to read these comments in context and not in snippets. Can you point me to the corresponding discussion(s)?
-- Niabot Am 30.09.2011 19:02, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: > Tobias, you be the judge whether I misunderstood my fellow Wikipedians' > comments. Here are some verbatim quotes, from different contributors: > > "How exactly would you propose to get an appropriately licensed video of a > rape? [...] I suppose, in the unlikely even that we were to get a video that > were appropriately licensed, did not raise privacy concerns, and was germane > to the subject, we'd use it. Why shouldn't we? The specific role of > NOTCENSORED is to say "We do not exclude things because people are squeamish > about them", and replacing the word "censor" with "editorial judgment" is a > simple case of euphemism, and does not change what it means. As to the > beheading videos, yes, yes, and most certainly yes. We show graphic images of > suffering in articles about The Holocaust, even though that may not be the > most comfortable thing for some people. Why wouldn't we do so in an article > about another horrific act, if the material is under a license we can use it > with?" > I would have no issues with videos of animals (including humans) defecating > on appropriate articles. I'm sure you were looking for an "OMG THAT'S SO > GROSS!" response, but you won't find it from me. > [me:] The question is not whether you would be grossed out watching it. The > question is, what encyclopedic value would it add? I don't think there is a > single human being on the planet who needs to watch a video of a person > defecating to understand how defecation works. If that is your real > rationale, then why aren't you going to support removal of images from human > nose? But your chat about rape and beheading (both subjects for which I'd > strongly advocate a video for, if there could be a free, privacy-keeping one) > makes me lose WP:AGF a bittle on this grasping at straws of yours. Let me > remember that we, as a culture, had to grow up a lot to accept not being > censored. Censoring is the exact opposite of "growing up as a culture". > It sounded to me like they meant it. Doesn't it to you? They were all > established users; one of them an admin. I had a long, and perfectly amicable > e-mail discussion about it with him afterwards. Their position is entirely > logical, but it lacks common sense and, indeed, a little empathy. > Andreas > > > --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte<tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > From: Tobias Oelgarte<tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial > judgement, and image filters > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 17:06 > > Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: >> --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari<rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >> From: Ryan Kaldari<rkald...@wikimedia.org> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial >> judgement, and image filters >> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28 >> >> >> On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote: >>> This post appears mostly to be the tone argument: >>> >>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument >>> >>> - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to >>> be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and >>> that they should therefore be ignored. >> Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with >> nothing more than chants of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", the tone argument seems >> quite valid. >> >> Ryan Kaldari >> Quite. >> I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a >> rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include >> it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. >> That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it >> should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is >> not censored. >> That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED >> requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently >> beheaded. >> That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of >> men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images >> of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored. >> And so on. >> Andreas >> > I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that > there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate > Illustration for the subject. Would you say the same, if this[1] or some > other documentary film would be put under the CC license? Wouldn't it be > illustrative as well as educational? > > [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvuLAZxgOM > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
