On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>>>>> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter
>>>> Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
>>>> because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.
>>> Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
>>> probability to be very high.
>> Then, if your proposed change is opposed by a significant number of
>> people, it would tend to indicate it has not gained consensus.
> Heh.  Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
> in Wikipedia-speak...use the word consensus.

That's the way the project works. You or I can love it, or hate it, or
rail against it, but that's the reality. If you'd like to propose a
different mechanism, you can. But I think that the consensus
mechanism, for all its faults, has produced a very remarkable end

Any system we use is going to be imperfect. Perhaps consensus is the
least imperfect one.

>> That,
>> too, is the nature of the beast, when working on a project like this.
>> I think we've all had an idea we strongly believe to be right fail to
>> gain the consensus that would be needed to implement it.
> Certainly.  And when this happens, sometimes we write about it, and
> then someone says "so fix it", and we say "the next day someone will
> fix it back".
> You seem to be making the assumption that Wikipedia's notion of
> "consensus" is the proper way to write an encyclopedia.  I by no means
> am accepting that assumption.

What would you propose as a superior mechanism, then? That's not a
rhetorical or sarcastic question-maybe we could do better. But you
haven't said how.

>>> But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
>>> is it not?
>> I suppose in the most technical sense it is, but that's a question of
>> very settled and tested law, unlike 2257.
> So, the only reason kiddie porn isn't allowed (*) is that it's illegal?
> (*) Notwithstanding Virgin Killer, and perhaps a few other examples, anyway.

Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
repeatedly, end of discussion. If 2257 were similarly upheld to apply
even in circumstances of educational/artistic work, I suppose we'd
similarly have to follow it like it or not, but it is untested in such
areas, and I suspect the SC would find it massively overbroad,
especially as it relates to subjects not identifiable at all.

But even in a hypothetical (and highly unlikely) world where child
porn was legal, a privacy issue exists there that does not exist in
adult nude or sexual images, since children are incapable of giving
real consent to participation in such a thing due to lack of maturity,
whereas adults can and often do give informed consent to participation
in photographed or filmed nudity or sexuality. I think that, too,
would allow us to draw a distinction between sexual images of children
and those of adults, since those of a child would be -by definition-
taken without the subject's genuine consent.

>> In a very technical sense, forbidding penis vandalism is
>> censorship, but I think most of us know the difference. Putting a
>> picture of a penis on the article about a political candidate or
>> sports team is unacceptable, putting a picture of a penis on the
>> "Penis" article is much more likely to be done in good faith.
> What if it's a picture of the penis of the political candidate?

I can -conceive- of a case where that would be appropriate, such as if
the candidate were a member of a hypothetical "Porn Party" and freely
released such an image, and that release resulted in substantial
source coverage of that particular image.  In that case, we of course
should show it, since the article will have a section with reliably
sourced commentary on it. But since no such thing really exists, such
an image would be of little to no relevance to the article. In that
case, we're not disallowing it because it's a penis, we're disallowing
it because it's irrelevant. But if somehow it were extremely relevant
to the article, I'd see no problem including it. In every case I know
of, though, a candidate penis photo would be just as irrelevant as a
macro photo of a few hairs on the candidate's head.

> You seem to think there's a clear line to be drawn that everyone
> agrees upon.  But clearly there isn't.  Some people think the line
> should be drawn in one place, and some people think it should be drawn
> in another.

That goes back up to the above. When disagreement happens, we discuss
it and come to consensus, if we can. If no consensus can be reached
for an exception in a particular circumstance, standing policy (in
this case, NOTCENSORED) serves as a fallback/baseline, and we go with
that. Did you have another suggestion for a better process?

> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to