Wikipedia talk:Pornography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why have this page?
The project page Wikipedia:Pornography is designed to track some related issues which some people regard as pornography. It is not designed to create policy.
My personal view is that the "No Censorship, Ever" attitude of some editors will damage Wikipedia, and that a more considered approach is necessary. I would be more than happy with a policy something like: "Wikipedia is not a Pornography Gallery" with debates revolving around whether certain images were pornography and whether the damage they could cause to the encyclopedia exceeded the benefit they might bring. I personally have relatively few problems with "clinical" pictures but I am concerned about images which might appear on "adult" sites, whether "hard" or "soft". But that will not reach consensus yet, so the debate has to revolve around individual items. --Audiovideo 22:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You're right. Besides, if we had absolutely "NO censorship, EVER" then we could just put whatever the heck we want on Wikipedia, and it would turn into a directory of random information, essentially just a miniature Internet. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random information dump, and it's also not a porn mag. 170.215.83.212 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] update?
"A proposal to delete a parallel page to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse without photographs of torture, naked and dead bodies and technically kept with the same text as the original article did not reach a clear consensus so the parallel article remains. The last debate was at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)."
- The parallel page seems to be gone now, so this should be updated, I think? Esquizombi 09:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, please update as needed. On Wikipedia, if you know what needs doing then do it! Cheers. WAS 4.250 16:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure the parallel page wasn't moved somewhere else under a different name, or why the page had a protection notice on it. But I found the other AfDs so I added them - but maybe someone could make it a little clearer. Esquizombi 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, please update as needed. On Wikipedia, if you know what needs doing then do it! Cheers. WAS 4.250 16:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Erotica on main page
I am not 100% sure whether this is the best page on which to make this comment, so feel free to suggest another page if appropriate.
Today, the main page featured article is history of erotic depictions, and some related text and the associated image Image:Pompeii-wall painting.jpg (inlined at thumbnail size) are included on the main page (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 30, 2006).
This strikes me as pushing the "wikipedia is not censored" ideology beyond a common-sense limit. That principle may dictate that the information should be available to those who seek it, but to put it on the front page is to give it a really unnecessary degree of prominence, with the possible result that even though Wikipedia is not itself censored, it may become more likely to be censored by others, particularly those who set up child-friendly fitering for use in schools etc — a pyrrhic victory for ideology.
— Alan✉ 14:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say that if a school or another institution or person blocks Wikipedia for an encyclopaedic discussion of the history erotic art, then we're going to lose no matter what. It's not our job to cater to the lowest common denominator and appeal to those who think that any and all discussion of eroticism, the human body and the like are "dirty" and must never be discussed.
- In other words: we're writing an *encyclopaedia*; if an article is written in a way that is pornographic or that makes it unsuitable for minors, it needs to be rewritten, anyway, and if it's not, well... then there's simply no problem. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
