On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:03 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 May 2010 23:53, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On the talk page, I mostly see people calling
it out for the
> censorship stalking horse it was.
> You can tag a goat "a very special sort of chicken," but people will
> see through that.
So you are saying anything labelled "content
guidelines" will be
called "censorship"? That's silly. You have to have limits when
writing an encyclopedia, otherwise you just end up with a mess like
the internet.
No indeed, that's not what I said, it's a version you appear to have
derived through an "all A is B therefore all B is A" fallacy. I was
speaking of the example at hand.
OK. Would you like to try writing something that would be suitable for
use as "image content guidelines", or at least being more specific
about what you find objectionable about the wording of the text of
what I proposed.
Or to put it another way, many websites have guidelines relating to
the following:
* Explicit sexual content
* Explicit medical content
* Images of identifiable people
* Images depicting death
* Images depicting violence
* Images depicting religious figures
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having
explicit guidelines on such matters?
My position is that a single sentence ("Do not place shocking or
explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a
consensus of editors for that article") is insufficient as guidance.
The opposing position (which I assume is the one you take, but please
correct me if I am wrong) is that anything stronger or more detailed
or specific than that that would tip things over the line towards
censorship?
Carcharoth