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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 12:35 PM, John Lee
<johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 11:54 AM, Ken Arromdee
<arromdee(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l