> From: "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:17:34PM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
> > "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu> wrote:
> > > Rather, the issue here seems to me to be whether Wikipedia needs some
> > > kind of rules under which people's work will be deleted or hidden away
> > > on the grounds of being "offensive". I hold that it does not; indeed,
> > > that such rules would harm the project. Existing ad-hoc practices work
> > > just fine for selecting the work that should be included, on the basis
> > > of accuracy, style, neutrality, copyright, and other such rules.
> >
> > I agree - however, the argument here is being made that linking to a
> > image that is beyond the bounds is NPOV despite the voting and actions
> > by Jimbo.
>
> Setting up "bounds" on the basis solely of offense is not NPOV and is
> not legitimate for Wikipedia. There are, however, perfectly good
> legitimate criteria which exclude some of the same images which also
> offend people.
>
> Note, for instance, that Jimbo did not defend his unlinking of the image
> on the basis of its offending people, and specifically disclaimed that
> motive: see [[Talk:Autofellatio#Raul's convo]].
>
> Here's another approach:
>
> The class of images I suspect more people are concerned about is not the
> class "offensive images", but rather the class "gratuitously offensive
> images". Most everyone recognizes that there is also a class of
> "informative images which also offend some people" -- for instance,
> internal organs, caterpillars, swastikas, hammer-and-sickles, Abu
> Ghraib, Jesus fish, etc., and that we must use these images in articles
> where they are relevant.
I agree in fact this is a much better description of what I meant
earlier - "gratitiously offensive image" - this would meet that
description - and although it does convey the meaning that it can be
done. Text in the article actually explains that it can be done with a
flexible enough person who is well endowed. There is no additional
information given by the image (unless one -from Missouri- says, I
don't believe the text, show me). In which case a link would suffice
for that person.
...
> Unfortunately, the state of the world today is that "offensive" text is
> much easier for automated systems such as censorware to recognize than
> "offensive" images. It is easier for a program to pattern-match the
> word "fellatio" than a picture of same.
>
Don't some censorware do their job based on a page by page analysis
rather than a entire domain block - if not - maybe I have a new
project to work on :)
...
> I'm not so sure. If the image is informative, then hiding it behind a
> link relegates it to a second-class status. It has, to me, connotations
> of sneakiness or dirtiness: "Heh-heh, do you *really* want to see?"
>
Or it could mean - "some find this objectionable, are you sure you
want to see it." which is what it does mean in this case.
> I believe this matter was extensively hashed out in the matter of the
> [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]] article, where presentation of
> a "censored" or "images suppressed" version of an article was rejected.
> The talk-page and VfD discussions surrounding that article cluster are
> informative.
>
I know - I lurked that discussion for sometime and still don't
understand why it was defeated. I, for one, would prefer to read the
article (especially as an editor without having to conciously ignore
the images - or block all images with my browser - as has been
suggested).
**It seems perfectly reasonable to provide alternatives to people
especially if the upkeep is non-existent or minimal.**
...
> If an image has no educational or encyclopedic content, then it doesn't
> belong on Wikipedia at all, regardless of whether it offends people.
Agreed - and I don't see the encyclopedic content of even the pencil drawing.
Jim (trodel(a)gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]