"The article is about a sexual act. I don't see what the problem is with porn in this instance, as long as the site itself contains lots of high quality free material (which this one does)."
The question is again one of minors accessing pages like this one and being shown porn sites through it. I see no difference between publishing porn and creating links to it, at least as far as responsible reporting on sexual matters goes.
It also, at least to a degree, threatens to render ineffective the removal of THAT picture.
Arno M said:
"The article is about a sexual act. I don't see what the problem is with porn in this instance, as long as the site itself contains lots of high quality free material (which this one does)."
The question is again one of minors accessing pages like this one and being shown porn sites through it.
The site in question has an age disclaimer. Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen into whch people can dump their kids without supervision?
I see no difference between publishing porn and creating links to it, at least as far as responsible reporting on sexual matters goes.
Given the above:
It also, at least to a degree, threatens to render ineffective the removal of THAT picture.
Right. Removal of pictures from Wikipedia only defers the problem that you perceive.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The site in question has an age disclaimer. Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen into whch people can dump their kids without supervision?
But, consider this restatement: Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen where annoying trolls can dump their porn photos without supervision?
--Jimbo
Jimbo said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The site in question has an age disclaimer. Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen into whch people can dump their kids without supervision?
But, consider this restatement: Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen where annoying trolls can dump their porn photos without supervision?
I don't recognise that as a restatement. Could you explain?
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote
But, consider this restatement: Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen where annoying trolls can dump their porn photos without supervision?
You call that a rhetorical question?
What would be the wiki way? That's not a rhetorical question, but a real one. I suppose if we declare porn (i.e. erotica lacking encyclopedic content) to be spam, at very least, then we know we hate spam on WP, and we know we sanction spammers. That might be the 80 for 20 for this one; and the wiki way accepts the 80 for 20 first. We also know that it is policy that things shouldn't be posted _just_ to make a point about WP. That should take out another big tranche. And so on. If someone argues for a sex manual, we say that it is agreed that 'how to' is not WP, but Wikibooks, if anything.
Does this make sense? I doubt that we shall ever manage not to offend anyone.
Charles
At 08:29 AM 2/14/2005 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The site in question has an age disclaimer. Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen into whch people can dump their kids without supervision?
But, consider this restatement: Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen where annoying trolls can dump their porn photos without supervision?
I don't see how putting a photo of someone performing autofellatio onto the autofellatio article is trolling. That's just about the only article I can think of where it would actually fit in.
If it's a copyvio or if there are _better_ images to replace it with, that's a separate issue that's already covered pretty clearly by existing policy.
Bryan Derksen said:
At 08:29 AM 2/14/2005 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The site in question has an age disclaimer. Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen into whch people can dump their kids without supervision?
But, consider this restatement: Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen where annoying trolls can dump their porn photos without supervision?
I don't see how putting a photo of someone performing autofellatio onto the autofellatio article is trolling. That's just about the only article I can think of where it would actually fit in.
If it's a copyvio or if there are _better_ images to replace it with, that's a separate issue that's already covered pretty clearly by existing policy.
Indeed, whether or not the existing picture is appropriate can be decided by consensus. Before Jimbo's intervention there were very, very few people seriously arguing that the picture was inappropriate, and I still do not understand that argument. The question was whether to link. Even now there is no consensus to link, though it seems to be heading in that direction. In short, though a lot of people decry the chaos of the discussion, it showed Wikipedia's normal decision making processes working very effectively. There was a very brief edit war at one point but nothing that couldn't be handled capably by administrators doing their normal job.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Indeed, whether or not the existing picture is appropriate can be decided by consensus. Before Jimbo's intervention there were very, very few people seriously arguing that the picture was inappropriate, and I still do not understand that argument. The question was whether to link.
As I made clear - the link is a *compromise* position as far as I am concerned. I think that will be true of many of those voting for that option.
--sannse
sannse said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Indeed, whether or not the existing picture is appropriate can be decided by consensus. Before Jimbo's intervention there were very, very few people seriously arguing that the picture was inappropriate, and I still do not understand that argument. The question was whether to link.
As I made clear - the link is a *compromise* position as far as I am concerned. I think that will be true of many of those voting for that option.
The link was a compromise for me, too; it's a two way street. I was surprised that there was no consensus for that.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
sannse said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Indeed, whether or not the existing picture is appropriate can be decided by consensus. Before Jimbo's intervention there were very, very few people seriously arguing that the picture was inappropriate, and I still do not understand that argument. The question was whether to link.
As I made clear - the link is a *compromise* position as far as I am concerned. I think that will be true of many of those voting for that option.
The link was a compromise for me, too; it's a two way street. I was surprised that there was no consensus for that.
It was hardly a compromise on your part when you voted against it Tony. I agree it /would/ have been a compromise for both of us if you had agreed to it.
--sannse
sannse said:
It was hardly a compromise on your part when you voted against it Tony.
I agree it /would/ have been a compromise for both of us if you had agreed to it.
Before you even mentioned the idea of a vote, I said I thought the inline and the link were great. In response to your like I said: "I like the link that Sannse has produced. I think the inline image is nice, too because it makes for a much more dramatic article. You think, "Wow! This is actually possible!" Which I think is nice for an encyclopedia and beautifully complements the scholarly prose about Atum and Brian Aldiss and whatnot."
In my vote for inline I said: "Suits me. I changed it to inline on January 6th and have found it to be surprisingly stable in the month since then, given the controversial contents of the image. So I think I'd like to keep it inline as it's a lovely picture and he does seem to be enjoying himself so." I had to vote some way. As I like the picture a lot, I voted to inline it.
And still there is, as yet, no consensus to link.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I don't see how putting a photo of someone performing autofellatio onto the autofellatio article is trolling. That's just about the only article I can think of where it would actually fit in.
*Somewhere* we have to draw a line, I think, but we just all disagree on where. For example, many would argue that adding a rotten.com image of a car crash to [[car accident]] is inappropriate, despite it being clearly on topic and arguably informative (an image gives a much different understanding of what flying through a windshield really is like as opposed to a text description). Or, to take everyone's favorite example, we don't have an image of the goatse.cx man on [[shock site]], despite it being eminently on topic there---and arguably this is one place where a picture really is worth a thousand words in terms of explaining "what's this goatse thing and why is it a big deal?"
My personal preference would be to keep most "squickish" images as links. When I'm browsing the encyclopedia, I don't necessarily want to see, without purposely clicking on "show me this image", images of: an anus on [[anus]]; autofellatio on [[autofellatio]]; goatse on [[shock site]]; a clitoris on [[clitoris]]; a car crash on [[car accident]]; a cut-open chest on [[heart surgery]]; and so on. None of those images particularly offend me (no, not even goatse... as a long-time internet denizen it barely even surprises me anymore), but they're eye-catching enough to be distracting from the text.
-Mark
Delirium said:
*Somewhere* we have to draw a line, I think, but we just all disagree on where. For example, many would argue that adding a rotten.com image of a car crash to [[car accident]] is inappropriate, despite it being clearly on topic and arguably informative (an image gives a much
different understanding of what flying through a windshield really is like as opposed to a text description).
That sounds like a pretty good idea, though rotten.com may object. There are probably plenty of public domain US car crash pictures.
Or, to take everyone's favorite example, we don't have an image of the goatse.cx man on [[shock site]], despite it being eminently on topic there---and arguably this is one place where a picture really is worth a thousand words in terms of explaining "what's this goatse thing and why is it a big deal?"
There is currently a poll on whether to inline this, link it, or keep it as an external link. The Alexa site has a small inline screenshot that looks just fine to me.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 06:27:48PM -0000, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Delirium said:
*Somewhere* we have to draw a line, I think, but we just all disagree on where. For example, many would argue that adding a rotten.com image of a car crash to [[car accident]] is inappropriate, despite it being clearly on topic and arguably informative (an image gives a much different understanding of what flying through a windshield really is like as opposed to a text description).
That sounds like a pretty good idea, though rotten.com may object. There are probably plenty of public domain US car crash pictures.
I haven't seen rotten.com's collection of car-crash pictures, but I've read many of their "Rotten Library" articles, most of which seem to be quite good research on unusual and icky subjects (from trepanation to Al Qaida, from SpongeBob SquarePants to the Gunpowder Plot). They do tend to have a lot of images, though I suspect many of them are a little bit copyright-infringe-ish around the edges.
Having pictures of an actual car crash would have other problems, though -- for one, permission from the persons involved in the crash. We don't want to infringe upon the privacy of them or their heirs.
Karl A. Krueger said:
Having pictures of an actual car crash would have other problems, though -- for one, permission from the persons involved in the crash. We don't want to infringe upon the privacy of them or their heirs.
Absolutely. I was just wondering aloud. There are issues of privacy, taste, decency and the like, just as there are with showing sexual pictures, pictures of public slayings such as the Saint Valentine's Massacre (the immediate aftermath of which we carry a picture) and whatnot.
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
But, consider this restatement: Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen where annoying trolls can dump their porn photos without supervision?
Jimbo, can you explain why you think a picture of a man performing autofellatio in an article about autofellatio is pornographic?
Christiaan