If we had an article about Gerbelling, it would be easy for readers to discover that it's an urban myth. But that's neither here nor there.
A better example is the shock site Goatse, which we *do* have an article on, but which we *don't* illustrate (despite there being an obviously relevant image...).
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 12:35 PM, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 11:54 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Nathan wrote:
Do we modify content on Wikipedia in response to the offense taken by a subset of our audience?
If someone put a picture of someone shoving a gerbil up their behind on the page for "gerbil", we'd remove it. So yes, we do modify content in response to (or anticipation of) offense from the audience.
Actually we usually do it because of the encyclopaedia; we tend to remove links to "BASDSITES" because they don't have a real relevance to whatever article they're insinuated into, and we remove pictures of people shoving gerbils up their ass because generally these aren't relevant to an article about gerbils that has no actual text concerning the act of shoving a gerbil up one's rectum.
Johnleemk
Indeed, if we had an article on [[Gerbilling]], no doubt one of our selfless editors would provide a photo of the activity that'd be stuck front & center. It's just not very relevant to Gerbils, which is why it's not there. Similiarly with Muhammad, we routinely exclude images that we just don't find very relevant, like Blake's illustration of Muhammad in Dante's Inferno, which is just too tangentially removed (and if the goal at Muhammad was to offend people, rest assured that image would be included).
Cheers WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l