On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, first of all, why? > > Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos. > Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed, > [[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc. I checked, and > there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but > it's probably just a matter of time.
Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy concerns (for example if the persons shown were no longer alive). He and I have discussed this at length before, together with Jimbo, but I don't think either of us has been able to change the other's mind. :) Many Wikipedians generally argue that because Wikipedia is not censored, it should always be appropriate to show an image or video of what the article is about. According to this reasoning, an ideal article about rape would show a video of rape. An article on suicide would have embedded videos of people killing themselves. An article on marriage would show a video of a marriage's consummation. An article on fatal car accidents would show a video of a fatal car crash one. An article on Russian roulette would show someone playing it. And so forth. This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational competence for that matter. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
