2008/12/9 private musings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > My answer right now to the question 'should wikipedia be available in > schools' is 'no' - I'd be interested to hear yours. > > I think it'd be great to lead the way on a community level in figuring out > how best to communicate this - you know - accentuating the positives, > communicating clearly the nature of the wiki beast etc. > > Stuff that I've done in this area goes back a little way - primarily in > 'project space' with; > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents and recently > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sexual_content > > On a side note, I believe Commons has a bit of catch up to do in terms of > policy and practice in dealing with images best described as 'edgy' and > uncharitably described as free porn, and whilst I'm happy to talk about that > here, I guess the most 'on topic' matter in hand is how this (and indeed > recent press coverage) impact our outreach work, and what we might be able > to do to best work with schools etc.
You're resting your entire argument on the assumption that encyclopedic, earnest and frank discussion of sexuality is a weakness, and something to be ashamed of. I don't agree that children need to be "protected" from sexuality any more than they need to be "protected" from non-heterosexual influences. History, past and present, shows that those societies in which sexuality is discussed openly, earnestly, and honestly, have the lowest rates of sexually transmitted infection, teen pregnancy, and divorce. While many of the powers that be (parents and teachers, as well as the government of the day) are afraid of earnest discussion of sexuality, I don't see why we ought to indulge them. Even if you accept the idea that pornography is inherently damaging to society and to viewers (which is an entirely different, but related argument, and I can certainly see arguments on either side, regardless of my feelings on it), it does not necessarily follow that sexual content is also damaging to society. In your crusades against sexualised content, you have consistently denied or ignored the distinction between smut (that is, something that appeals purely to the prurient interest), and tasteful but relevant illustration (that is, something which would also appeal to curiosity or a more intellectual interest). The fact of the matter is that a basic understanding of human anatomy is essential to any well-rounded education, and I would far prefer that a child comes to this understanding through tasteful, but earnest images (including photographs), rather than a mishmash of unclear and over-complicated diagrams (made complicated to mask the sexual aspect of them), vague description, and personal experience that most of us have used to come to our current understanding of the anatomy of both genders. I therefore view your, and other's attempts to suppress representation of sexuality for fear that it is 'inappropriate' for children (without any stipulation as to the reasons for this assertion) as misguided at best, and at worst willful denial of the education that children need to function correctly in society. Sexuality is a part of society - an integral part, as it happens, it governs much of our lives. This will remain the case despite the attempts to suppress it by you, the IWF and other organisations. -- Andrew Garrett _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
