--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> Now this is not to say that there aren't other arguments against linking
> and in favor of inlining this sort of image. But I don't think this
> argument that somehow linking is taking away choices is very compelling.
> It seems clear to me that the opposite is true: linking gives people
> the choice to view the image or not, in the simplest and most effective
> way possible, without requiring the to know in advance that there might
> be shocking images, without requiring them to change browser settings, etc.
Exactly. The opposite argument is absurd on its face. The only issue now is the
details: what to display by default and what to link by default. Being only a
semi-prude, I say simple nudity is almost always OK to display by default while
sex acts (both with oneself and with the help of others ) is almost always not
OK to display by default in articles (with the possible exception of good line
drawings).
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> >But there's still the difference of "expectation".
> You can't go to an
> >article about private parts and expect to see no
> pictures.
> >
> >The Titanic article is a whole different story,
> though I think some
> >people are really overreacting about this. What
> about the famous "King
> >of the World"-scene. Shouldn't that make for a nice
> image to add to
> >the article?
> >
> >
> Yes. That or a scene of the ship breaking up on end
> (not that I've seen
> the movie).
But wouldn't that offend people who don't want to see
violence? ~~~~
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Further to my last e-mail, I see that a compromise has been made and the offending image
'cut' so that we only see her face and shoulders.
This is certainly better.
--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
Karl Krueger wrote:
>What's wrong with censorware tagging? Where to start? Here's the
>biggie: tagging is incompatible with Wikipedia's existing commitments.
>
>No system of tags is compatible with Wikipedia's commitment to
>neutrality. The dimensions, biases, and extremes of any system of tags
>are created from a particular non-neutral point of view. Wikipedia is
>categorically forbidden from taking on such a point of view as its own.
Well, actually, there is a system that *would* work while maintaining
Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality: an *external* tagging system.
Imagine a separate website with a domain name of, say, "ob.noxio.us."
Like del.icio.us, it would be a tagging system that lets anyone post
their own bookmarks, with keywords. The difference would be that
whereas del.icio.us tags web pages that have content they LIKE,
ob.noxio.us would tag pages with content they DISLIKE. This would
create a sort of censorware folksonomy. It would then be a fairly
simple matter to design a system that filters content on pages (not
just on Wikipedia but on the entire web), according to whatever
categories they choose: nipples, images of excrement, the face of
Bill O'Reilly, whatever.
If people are really concerned about the content on Wikipedia, I
think they should devote their energies to developing an external
solution along these lines. After all, the problem they're describing
isn't just a problem with Wikipedia. If you're worried about your
boss getting mad when your web browser displays nudity, Wiipedia
isn't the only (or even the most likely) place where this is likely
to happen. A web-wide solution would be more appropriate to the scope
of this problem, and it would allow Wikipedia to continue doing what
it does best without worrying about yet another layer of
administration and contention.
--Sheldon Rampton
Kevin, you have my full sympathy. I'm still only semi-returned after a making a similar decision about having a wiki-vacation last year.
You've hit the nail exactly on the head when you wrote "We exist to be an encyclopedia
not a bastion of freedom of speech. We are here to provide information NOT to make political statements about censorship."
Unfortunately, there are far too many individuals here who seem to think otherwise, and this is very disruptive.
That picture should definitely go. It is not the explicit stuff that the autofellatio picture was, buit its purpose is still to shock in the name of freedom of speech more than to inform.
Whatever happened to that bowderliasing project that was promised in the wake of the autofellatio picture? That seems to have dioed a quiet death.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Rector" <krector(a)Compco.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:20:07 -0500
>
> Please see the discussion on [[Image:KateWinsletTitanic.jpg]] at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Apr
> il_11.
>
> Here's my reply to the whole deal:
>
> Delete -- For the same reason as Nunh-huh and DreamGuy. This adds
> nothing to the article except controversy. So the only reason to keep it
> in the article is to reduce WikiLove, and to increase Wikistress. I hate
> all these stupid debates about nudity. We exists to be an encyclopedia
> not a bastion of freedom of speech. We are here to provide information
> NOT to make political statements about censorship. Having nude and/or
> sexually explicit pictures in our encyclopedia upsets enough people that
> it detracts significantly from the task of making an encylopedia and
> that is reason enough to delete this picture (and others like it). There
> is a definite agenda by the nude-picture-pushers here and it has nothing
> to do with creating an NPOV encyclopedia. Kevin Rector (talk) 22:04, Apr
> 12, 2005 (UTC)
>
> Now to you the mailing list:
>
> I've tried to stay out of the fray with all the nude/porn picture
> debates that have gone on, but I've come to the realization that people
> are searching out nude pictures to put in the 'pedia. They are looking
> to stir up trouble, mostly to make a point.
>
> The fact that the Wikipedia "community" won't resolve these problems,
> and the fact that the community so proudly proclaims that "Wikipedia is
> not censored" while ignoring the fact that "Wikipedia is quite
> dysfunctional" has made me realize that I need to re-evaluate if this is
> a project that I want to be a part of.
>
> Plus the politics and partisanship are really annoying.
>
> I'm going on WikiVacation - I may or may not return.
>
> -Kevin Rector
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
--- Richard Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect that if someone posted to this list being
> scornful or
> mocking of, say, Muslim culture, they would get
> slapped down hard, and
> likely be banned from the list if they persisted. Is
> my suspicion
> wrong?
>
> Yet we're very tolerant of this sort of culture
> bashing when it comes
> to conservative Christian culture. You don't have to
> agree with
> someone's culture to respect that culture and
> members of it. Let's all
> try to show a little more respect for each other.
>
> --Rich Holton
Very good question, Rich, and I'll answer it from my
perspective.
Because the Christian culture, at least in the United
States, DEMANDS, that ONLY their particular cultural
sensitivities and prejudices be catered to. There is
no "If you don't want to see it, don't look at it."
No, rather, it's "I don't want to see it, so you
can't, either."
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
--- Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> > --- Theo Clarke <wiki(a)tignosis.com> wrote:
> >
> >>5. Mis-spelling by geni (they particularly enjoyed
> >>'vanderlism'); I imagine that this would be no
> >>problem were they not already enraged.
> >
> > Not too sensitive to non-native speakers, are
> they?
> > Talk about arrogance!
>
> What is this thing about non-native speakers all the
> time? Native
> speakers misspell their words thousands of times
> more often than
> learners, *especially* in English; and a misspelling
> like "vanderlism"
> is thousands of times more likely to come from a
> native speaker than a
> learner.
>
> Timwi
Um, are you attacking me for daring to stand up for
Geni?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
--- Theo Clarke <wiki(a)tignosis.com> wrote:
> Several things have goaded this group to higher
> levels of aggression:
> 1. The dismissal of their votes (which we did not
> explain).
Entirely, completely, utterly untrue. We repeatedly
told them that the votes of anons and of IDs which
were created after the VfD listing are generally
discounted, and we repeatedly told them this is a
long-established Wikipedia policy.
> 2. The accusation that they are sockpuppets; we
> should check IP addresses before making such
> accusations.
We repeatedly told them that the usage of the term
sockpuppet in a Wikipedia VfD context means those who
create accounts after the VfD listing.
> 3. The perceived arrogance of some sysops sending
> messages to the effect that they will never win
> because we can ban them all. That sort of claim
> escalates the conflict; we should avoid them if
> similar circumstances arise.
We never did any such thing, unless it was done on
email. I DID till John Cheese that he would be
blocked if he vandalized the article with the goatse
picture, which he threatened to do.
> 5. Mis-spelling by geni (they particularly enjoyed
> 'vanderlism'); I imagine that this would be no
> problem were they not already enraged.
Not too sensitive to non-native speakers, are they?
Talk about arrogance!
> 6. Statements by some VFD voters that their vote is
> simply to spite the POW members. I have trouble
> understanding how the voters failed to see how
> inflammatory this was.
Sorry. I told them that if they had ever been on
Wikipedia before, which they had not, they would know
that I repeatedly vote Delete on articles which have
multiple Keep votes from sockpuppets. Besides, they
were voting Keep, they only changed to Delete when
John Cheese demanded it be removed. The majority of
regular Wikipedia editors was clearly in the Delete
column, whcih seems to be what he wants.
> 7. This post: You know, there's more of us than
> there is of them: we could swamp the hell out of
> their little board, if we had the inclination... �
> ClockworkSoul 21:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
>
> Theo
That was well after the threats of vandalism and the
arrogant demands that we change our procedures to
accomodate them.
RickK
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
--- geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Um, are you attacking me for daring to stand up
> for
> > Geni?
> >
> > RickK
>
> I'm a native speaker. Problem is that I'm dyslexic.
> I will run article
> contibutions through a spell checker but I don't
> normaly bother for
> anything else.
I'm very sorry, Geni, I apologize for my
misapprehension.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
wrote:
> Rick said:
> >
> > Rebecca, are you really trying to say that the
> > campaigns to DELETE the autofellatio and Kate
> Winslet
> > images are all in order to make them links to the
> > article pages? Hardly. They are campaigns to
> REMOVE
> > the images COMPLETELY from Wikipedia, so that
> NOBODY
> > can see them.
> >
>
> Absolutely. And a look at the talk page history for
> Autofellatio will show
> that I am no opponent of linking. The severe
> limitations of this
> technique must, however, be recognised, and it's
> clearly not a suitable
> way of treating an really very unobjectionable
> illustration of a movie,
> just because it contains tits which some very
> sensitive people don't like.
*A* tit. A blurry tit.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail