Wikipedia:Pornography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles | |
|---|---|
| Click here |
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
This page is designed to highlight the approach taken within Wikipedia with regard to what some contributors regard as pornography. There is no formal policy, or indeed definition (the Wikipedia:Profanity article has a semi-policy, but the discussion of generalities such as Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images seems to be less popular than discussion of specific examples); despite this there is frequent debate on related subjects. This page is designed to point to some of what has been decided or not decided; as usual, discussion about this page and related subjects should take place on the talk page.
Contents |
[edit] Existing policy
"Wikipedia is not censored" is a policy: some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links as explained in the disclaimer. The policy had previously been "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" but this was changed by 9 votes to 5. Attempts to define what censorship means were rejected.
Despite this, several images have been proposed for deletion on the grounds of being "unencyclopedic", because those proposing deletion feel either that they add nothing to the article in question or that they damage Wikipedia's reputation as a credible encyclopedia; similar points are made more generally everyday at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. One concern expressed is that although Wikipedia is not censored internally, it may be censored externally by others limiting access, and that a balance needs to be struck. In many cases other issues are also included in the debate, such as copyright issues. Those wishing to retain images usually put forward two arguments: first that any censorship is in principle unacceptable, and second that the particular image in question adds information to an article.
[edit] Jimbo Wales on obscenity
Jimbo in general endorses displaying topical images, even if some consider them obscene, but he once removed a photograph of autofellatio from its relevant article, with the following comment:
- "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline." [1]
After some reverts by various editors, Jimbo himself stated:
- "for now the link version is a decent compromise" [2]
The image was subsequently deleted for copyright violation, and replaced by a drawing, which was added to the article. [3] A month later, a free-licensed image was added as a link following the earlier compromise. [4]
[edit] Some examples of debates, decisions and non-decisions
Some of the pages linked here may cause offense to some people. Hence the frequent debates.
- The anal stretching photograph associated with the Goatse.cx article was removed from Wikipedia, but external links to it were retained. The record of discussion is at Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote
- 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 remained; however, consensus was later achieved for its deletion. The last debate was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures) and a recreation was speedy deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free).
- A proposal to remove certain photographs in the article Clitoris was defeated and the images have been retained without a disclaimer; a parallel page without the images was deleted; the debate on the images in that article has continued. Records of some of the discussions are at Talk:Clitoris/Archive4 and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clitoris (censored)
- An illustrative photograph associated with the Autofellatio article was removed from Wikipedia after several discussions. The record of the final discussion is at Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD
- Another illustrative photograph associated the same Autofellatio article was not removed, after a debate failed to reach a clear enough consensus. The record of the discussion is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 2
- A collage of nude pictures of Charlotte Ross was removed from Wikipedia. The record of the discussion is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Charlotterossnypdblue.
- A discussion formerly at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nudity in Wikipedia (now perhaps only in an old version of the page).
- The debate about Kate Winslet's breasts at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/KateWinsletTitanic while a different debate at Talk:Titanic (1997 movie) on use of the same image talked about a compromise
- An extensive debate filling six pages of archives at Talk:Lolicon regarding a drawing of a seminude seven-year-old girl with a dildo and a teddy bear in S&M regalia was resolved by an out-of-process deletion of the image by an admin, who was congratulated by Jimbo.
[edit] Vandalism
Some offensive images have been used for vandalism; so too have other images, but offensive ones appear to be particularly attractive to vandals and particularly objectionable to the victims of vandalism. Some technical measures have been taken to reduce the spread of such vandalism, such as removing the possibility of double interwiki links and hold galleries of such images such as the former Category:Images containing nudity so that links and changes could be monitored. Despite this, holding offensive images on Wikipedia makes this kind of vandalism easier than it would be than if a potential vandal had to upload a similar image.
