User talk:Adam Cuerden/Censorship, culture, and the law: WMF dilemma

Reaction
You make a logical and sympathetic point, Adam, about the inclusion of this artwork; and I think you have shown that Wales' reactions to the two controversies has been inconsistent, at least to some extent. However, you have not explained why the proper response should be the removal of Wales' privileges in the project. The fact that this page exists shows that Wales has not used his powers to impose absolute censorship. Wales has used his privileges with respect to the project thousands of times over the last decade. How should his actions here be measured against the ongoing work he does for the project, and how would his loss of privileges (and possible withdrawal from the project) benefit the project overall? I note that the issue of censorship of images of sexual activity is rather narrow: In 2001, Wales could have decreed much broader censorship: "There will be no depictions of nudity on Wikipedia". If he had done so, I don't think it would have discouraged any of us from joining the project. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)