Hello all,
As you probably know, the United Kingdom's Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) recently blocked (and subsequently unblocked) several Wikipedia articles on the basis that they contained what what was allegedly an indecent picture of a naked pre-pubescent girl (a cover of the Virgin Killer album). While the IWF's ban on these pages was badly implemented and perhaps in itself inappropriate, there is a serious issue at stake here—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and, since it is reached by thousands if not millions of school students on a daily basis, should it be carrying these kinds of pictures?
I've heard two main arguments in favour of keeping the specific Virgin Killer picture, and similar images, so far. The first position pivots on the clause in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (which is official Wikipedia policy) that states that "Wikipedia is not censored"; the second is based on the argument that the picture has not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in Wikipedia.
The argument from the standpoint that Wikipedia is not censored seems to be easily refuted, at least to me. Wikipedia claims to be, first and foremost, an _encyclopedia_; thus, some types of material are appropriate for inclusion, and other types are not—high standards of scholarship should be maintained throughout the project. The "not censored" clause in Wikipedia policy, though, seems to be commonly (mis?)understood to allow unregulated free expression and unrestricted content on Wikipedia; it is my understanding, at least, that this is not, or was not originally, the case. The clause that Wikipedia is not censored appears to me to be a kind of disclaimer for readers: "Wikipedia doesn't have any paid staff to check that content contained in the encyclopedia is appropriate for younger readers; therefore, you should know that you can find material that you may find objectionable here." I believe that the clause was originally written with the intent of giving readers fair warning about what they might run into, not for justifying the inclusion of all types of material. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia; well, according to established standards of traditional scholarship, this picture would not be displayed in any "true" encyclopedia—at least, I don't see Encyclopædia Britannica including it anytime soon, and Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger has already stated that the image won't be appearing on Citizendium (see http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/11/citizendium-safe-for-virgins/).
The argument from the standpoint that the picture has not yet been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in Wikipedia, seems even weaker than the previous one. It hinges on a critical point—the assumption that if content is legal, Wikipedia can and _should_ include it. This is incorrect, as I have stated and justified above: Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and according to this standard it should only include certain types of content. Legality, therefore, can only define material that must be _excluded_; it does not dictate what should be _included_.
Some users have expressed worry over the precedent that might be set if the picture was deleted or removed from the articles it appears in—"Next," they say, "it'll be images of Muhammed." Well, I'm not going to argue here for the inclusion or exclusion of images of Muhammed; but I will say that, unlike images of Muhammed, the Virgin Killer album cover image and other pictures like it are considered indecent, obscene, taboo, and/or distasteful by _general people_ (as opposed to radical religious fundamentalists, free speech advocates, commercial stakeholders, et cetera) in practically all human cultures.
Pictures like these can be described using words, and they do not have to be shown in all of their gory detail—personally, I have not viewed the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, yet I have learnt of its general content through what has been said about it. Should Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia and reaches millions of people daily—many, if not _most_, of them school students—really be distributing images such as the one that prompted the IWF ban?
I hope that we can engage in polite, reasoned intellectual debate rather than hinging on ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT bigotry.
Cheers and best regards,
—Thomas Larsen
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
[snip]
I've heard two main arguments in favour of keeping the specific Virgin Killer picture, and similar images, so far. The first position pivots on the clause in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (which is official Wikipedia policy) that states that "Wikipedia is not censored"; the second is based on the argument that the picture has not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in Wikipedia.
The argument from the standpoint that Wikipedia is not censored seems to be easily refuted, at least to me. Wikipedia claims to be, first and foremost, an _encyclopedia_; thus, some types of material are
[snip]
You've missed a primary argument which your first counter-argument arguably supports:
Actually seeing the image is arguably critical to having a nuanced understanding of the debate about the image. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia believes it has an obligation to try to be maximally informative.
I can state that having seen the image caused me to have an entirely different view on the past (and now current, I suppose) controversy than if I had not seen it. Wikipedia allowed me to form my own opinion in a way which would have simply not been possible otherwise. In the Wikipedia vision of an encyclopedia that is an ideal outcome. (There are other ideals of an encyclopedia out there: Some encyclopedias would prefer to give you a single pre-digested experts view, WP prefers to let you make up your own mind where possible).
I don't think too many would argue that this trumps all other considerations, but the most obvious trumping considerations such as the image being illegal or the image actually causing harm to someone are not especially well substantiated.
Actually seeing the image is arguably critical to having a nuanced understanding of the debate about the image. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia believes it has an obligation to try to be maximally informative.
Is seeing the image really critical? I personally don't think so. For one, I haven't looked at the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, as I noted in my post. Isn't it possible to just describe the picture textually, without actually showing it? More importantly, is showing the image actually scholarly? My main argument against inclusion is that it isn't.
—Thomas Larsen
Thomas Larsen wrote:
Actually seeing the image is arguably critical to having a nuanced understanding of the debate about the image. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia believes it has an obligation to try to be maximally informative.
Is seeing the image really critical? I personally don't think so. For one, I haven't looked at the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, as I noted in my post. Isn't it possible to just describe the picture textually, without actually showing it? More importantly, is showing the image actually scholarly? My main argument against inclusion is that it isn't.
—Thomas Larsen
How can you conclude that without ever take a glimps of the image?
This sort of argumentation is very strange to me. It is like: I don't need to take a glimps of any astronomical observations or physical theories, I just THINK the earth is the middlepoint of the universe.
Ting
2008/12/23 Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com:
I believe that the clause was originally written with the intent of giving readers fair warning about what they might run into, not for justifying the inclusion of all types of material. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia; well, according to established standards of traditional scholarship, this picture would not be displayed in any "true" encyclopedia—at least, I don't see Encyclopædia Britannica including it anytime soon, and Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger has already stated that the image won't be appearing on Citizendium (see http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/11/citizendium-safe-for-virgins/).
A traditional encyclopedia would no have an article on the album because it really isn't that well known so from that POV your point is untestable. Still lets look and a better known album cover with similar issues. Blind Faith (album). While I'm not aware of any encyclopedia talking about the album the cover appears in Dorling Kindersleys 100 Best Album Covers: The Stories Behind the Sleeves. So it appears that that is the kind of image traditional information sources include.
The argument from the standpoint that the picture has not yet been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in Wikipedia, seems even weaker than the previous one. It hinges on a critical point—the assumption that if content is legal, Wikipedia can and _should_ include it. This is incorrect, as I have stated and justified above: Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and according to this standard it should only include certain types of content. Legality, therefore, can only define material that must be _excluded_; it does not dictate what should be _included_.
You are confusing a single thread of an argument with a complete argument it. The it isn't illegal argument is used in conjunction with other arguments (a quick glance at how much the article talks about the image shows that it's inclusion is encyclopedic).
Some users have expressed worry over the precedent that might be set if the picture was deleted or removed from the articles it appears in—"Next," they say, "it'll be images of Muhammed." Well, I'm not going to argue here for the inclusion or exclusion of images of Muhammed; but I will say that, unlike images of Muhammed, the Virgin Killer album cover image and other pictures like it are considered indecent, obscene, taboo, and/or distasteful by _general people_ (as opposed to radical religious fundamentalists, free speech advocates, commercial stakeholders, et cetera) in practically all human cultures.
Prove it.
Pictures like these can be described using words, and they do not have to be shown in all of their gory detail—personally, I have not viewed the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, yet I have learnt of its general content through what has been said about it.
I doubt it.
Should Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia and reaches millions of people daily—many, if not _most_, of them school students—really be distributing images such as the one that prompted the IWF ban?
In this case yes.
You are confusing a single thread of an argument with a complete argument it. The it isn't illegal argument is used in conjunction with other arguments (a quick glance at how much the article talks about the image shows that it's inclusion is encyclopedic).
Does the image need to be shown, given its nature which is offensive to many, many people?
Should Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia and reaches millions of people daily—many, if not _most_, of them school students—really be distributing images such as the one that prompted the IWF ban?
In this case yes.
Prove it :-).
—Thomas Larsen
2008/12/23 Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com:
Does the image need to be shown, given its nature which is offensive to many, many people?
Need is an unhelpful term. You don't need to exist the universe is quite capable of increase entropy without you.
It is widely accepted that if you are going to discuss an artwork such as a photo or painting you show the audience the photo or painting. So it would appear that by the norms of presenting this kind of information the image should be shown.
Again the Blind Faith album cover features in Dorling Kindersley's (who have published an encyclopedia or too in their time) 100 Best Album Covers: The Stories Behind the Sleeves
2008/12/23 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Again the Blind Faith album cover features in Dorling Kindersley's (who have published an encyclopedia or too in their time) 100 Best Album Covers: The Stories Behind the Sleeves
And the Scorpions album in many collections of worst album covers of all time. That Blind Faith, Houses of the Holy are critically acclaimed and commercially successful works by musical geniuses and Virgin Killer is crassly-illustrated rubbish by morons doesn't change its distasteful fame.
- d.
2008/12/23 Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com:
I've heard two main arguments in favour of keeping the specific Virgin Killer picture, and similar images, so far. The first position pivots on the clause in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (which is official Wikipedia policy) that states that "Wikipedia is not censored"; the second is based on the argument that the picture has not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in Wikipedia.
As you note, these arguments are both easily refutable, and indeed they're tangential. (I really hate it when people try arguing solely from an "it isn't banned so we can do it" approach; it's fallacious and tangential...)
I for one won't complain if you ignore anyone who advances either of these positions as their sole justification for including an image :-)
The *real* justifiable reason for doing it is one you touch on in passing below:
Pictures like these can be described using words, and they do not have
The only sensible reason for including it, encyclopedically speaking, is the idea that we cannot reasonably describe it without using the image. And can we?
Well, it helps that we've had an awful lot of articles written about the album cover this month! I'm not sure any of them have effectively managed to describe the image without either unintentionally representing it as substantially more pornographic than it is, or making it sound entirely tame and causing you to wonder what all the fuss was about.
(Seriously. To read some descriptions of it, you'd think the reporters had looked at two different sets of images...)
So, yeah, the image is actually helpful to the discussion here, in many ways more so than in most comparable articles. A comparable example would perhaps be [[L'Origine du monde]], a famously sensational painting, and one undeniably indecent, which really needs illustrated to discuss it - the textual description doesn't quite work.
From a more general standpoint, we're helped in ensuring the image
needs to be there to be discussed by the fact that the image is copyrighted and not available freely... so it neatly dovetails with our own criteria of "we must need this image for editorial purposes" in order to use it. If we hadn't needed that, we'd have more reason for quietly killing it.
These criteria are fairly robust, if sometimes handled a bit loosely, and it's worth thinking about them. They don't apply to freely-licensed material, of course, but in a discussion last week (about a CC image I was arguing to remove), I suggested that we could do a lot worse than apply a modified version of the non-free content criteria to any lurid images, and rigorously think - do we need this, can we reasonably discuss the topic without it, can we replace it with an equally useful image, is it just decoration?
It might be worth considering something like this - we don't want lurid or shocking images plastered across the site unless they have editorial merit, but conversely removing them *merely* for their content can prove counterproductive. Some kind of policy that says "think hard about it and have a good reason; make sure it needs to be there" could turn out to have much of the desired effect.
2008/12/23 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
It might be worth considering something like this - we don't want lurid or shocking images plastered across the site unless they have editorial merit, but conversely removing them *merely* for their content can prove counterproductive. Some kind of policy that says "think hard about it and have a good reason; make sure it needs to be there" could turn out to have much of the desired effect.
We have that already as an implicit guideline. For God sake don't make it a "policy", I shudder to contemplate the robotic bureaucracy around it.
- d.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:34 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/23 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
It might be worth considering something like this - we don't want lurid or shocking images plastered across the site unless they have editorial merit, but conversely removing them *merely* for their content can prove counterproductive. Some kind of policy that says "think hard about it and have a good reason; make sure it needs to be there" could turn out to have much of the desired effect.
We have that already as an implicit guideline. For God sake don't make it a "policy", I shudder to contemplate the robotic bureaucracy around it.
You're a bit late— It's been a policy in some form or another for a fairly long time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Image_use_policy&old...
See #12; fairly similar to Andrew Gray's formulation. The current version of the page retains the point in an abbreviated form (I prefer the older form— though I think I might have written it, not worth the trouble checking, that it still persists in some form is the important point…)
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
As you probably know, the United Kingdom's Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) recently blocked (and subsequently unblocked) several Wikipedia articles on the basis that they contained what what was allegedly an indecent picture of a naked pre-pubescent girl (a cover of the Virgin Killer album). While the IWF's ban on these pages was badly implemented and perhaps in itself inappropriate, there is a serious issue at stake here—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and, since it is reached by thousands if not millions of school students on a daily basis, should it be carrying these kinds of pictures?
I've heard two main arguments in favour of keeping the specific Virgin Killer picture, and similar images, so far. The first position pivots on the clause in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (which is official Wikipedia policy) that states that "Wikipedia is not censored"; the second is based on the argument that the picture has not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in Wikipedia.
The argument from the standpoint that Wikipedia is not censored seems to be easily refuted, at least to me. Wikipedia claims to be, first and foremost, an _encyclopedia_; thus, some types of material are appropriate for inclusion, and other types are not—high standards of scholarship should be maintained throughout the project. The "not censored" clause in Wikipedia policy, though, seems to be commonly (mis?)understood to allow unregulated free expression and unrestricted content on Wikipedia; it is my understanding, at least, that this is not, or was not originally, the case. The clause that Wikipedia is not censored appears to me to be a kind of disclaimer for readers: "Wikipedia doesn't have any paid staff to check that content contained in the encyclopedia is appropriate for younger readers; therefore, you should know that you can find material that you may find objectionable here." I believe that the clause was originally written with the intent of giving readers fair warning about what they might run into, not for justifying the inclusion of all types of material. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia; well, according to established standards of traditional scholarship, this picture would not be displayed in any "true" encyclopedia—at least, I don't see Encyclopædia Britannica including it anytime soon, and Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger has already stated that the image won't be appearing on Citizendium (see http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/11/citizendium-safe-for-virgins/).
Britannica is not the correct comparison. Compare maybe http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Heavy-Metal-Daniel-Bukszpan/dp/0760742189 The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal or somesuch. Wikipedia is both a general and specialist encyclopaedia, servicinga wide variety of purposes. If we were just trying to duplicate EB with free licensing, we'd all be wasting out time (after all, there is a PD version - 1911).
The argument from the standpoint that the picture has not yet been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, and thus can be included in Wikipedia, seems even weaker than the previous one. It hinges on a critical point—the assumption that if content is legal, Wikipedia can and _should_ include it. This is incorrect, as I have stated and justified above: Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and according to this standard it should only include certain types of content. Legality, therefore, can only define material that must be _excluded_; it does not dictate what should be _included_.
Some users have expressed worry over the precedent that might be set if the picture was deleted or removed from the articles it appears in—"Next," they say, "it'll be images of Muhammed." Well, I'm not going to argue here for the inclusion or exclusion of images of Muhammed; but I will say that, unlike images of Muhammed, the Virgin Killer album cover image and other pictures like it are considered indecent, obscene, taboo, and/or distasteful by _general people_ (as opposed to radical religious fundamentalists, free speech advocates, commercial stakeholders, et cetera) in practically all human cultures.
Pictures like these can be described using words, and they do not have to be shown in all of their gory detail—personally, I have not viewed the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, yet I have learnt of its general content through what has been said about it. Should Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia and reaches millions of people daily—many, if not _most_, of them school students—really be distributing images such as the one that prompted the IWF ban?
I hope that we can engage in polite, reasoned intellectual debate rather than hinging on ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT bigotry.
Cheers and best regards,
—Thomas Larsen
Cheers Brian