"Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school). You can call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will let you), but those are the cold hard facts."
I agree with these sentiments, James.
I won't go into details, but I went through the experience of being called a Nazi for opposing a porn link once, and the culprit even got the backing of some sysops for doing that.
I agree also with what you said about Nick Berg in another post. I know that it was debated at length here, but the decision to have and retain that graphic photo of his severed head and links to sites showing his murder is something I label a disgrace. In addition to its unsuitable for minors nature, this decision would also have suited the objectives of the terrorists who wanted this to be shown throughout the world. It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists, especially ones who are as ruthless as these.
I agree that we shouldn't be displaying links to the beheadings. We've done it in around six articles. One of the websites we give the URL for (though not as a live link) is the ogrish site, which also shows young women having sex with horses. The fact that we have to crawl into the gutter to find these videos ought to tell us something. I wish we'd show more maturity as a community when it comes to stuff like this.
Sarah
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:56:11 +0600, Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
I agree also with what you said about Nick Berg in another post. I know that it was debated at length here, but the decision to have and retain that graphic photo of his severed head and links to sites showing his murder is something I label a disgrace.
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that we shouldn't be displaying links to the beheadings. We've done it in around six articles. One of the websites we give the URL for (though not as a live link) is the ogrish site, which also shows young women having sex with horses. The fact that we have to crawl into the gutter to find these videos ought to tell us something. I wish we'd show more maturity as a community when it comes to stuff like this.
To some people, such "gutter" is everyday life. They too have a need for an informative and complete encyclopedia.
Why do you think so many 19 year old american soldiers coming back from iraq are fubared in the head? Because they went from lily-white to scaping the bottom of the human barrel in 2 weeks.
If all wikipedia ever does is help war survivors cope, that will be reason enough to have built it.
Note: FUBAR, from wikipedia: A slang acronym which can mean "Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition" and/or or "Fucked Up Beyond All Repair".
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
To some people, such "gutter" is everyday life. They too have a need for an informative and complete encyclopedia.
Why do you think so many 19 year old american soldiers coming back from iraq are fubared in the head? Because they went from lily-white to scaping the bottom of the human barrel in 2 weeks.
Can you provide evidence for this claim?
If all wikipedia ever does is help war survivors cope, that will be reason enough to have built it.
Can you provide evidence that this is posible?
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
To some people, such "gutter" is everyday life. They too have a
need
for an informative and complete encyclopedia.
Why do you think so many 19 year old american soldiers coming
back
from iraq are fubared in the head? Because they went from
lily-white
to scaping the bottom of the human barrel in 2 weeks.
Can you provide evidence for this claim?
Find a vet and ask him.
If all wikipedia ever does is help war survivors cope, that will
be
reason enough to have built it.
Can you provide evidence that this is posible?
Can you provide evidence that it cannot?
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
geni said:
To some people, such "gutter" is everyday life. They too have a need for an informative and complete encyclopedia.
Why do you think so many 19 year old american soldiers coming back from iraq are fubared in the head? Because they went from lily-white to scaping the bottom of the human barrel in 2 weeks.
Can you provide evidence for this claim?
Could we stay on topic?
"geni" == geni geniice@gmail.com writes:
To some people, such "gutter" is everyday life. They too have a need for an informative and complete encyclopedia.
Why do you think so many 19 year old american soldiers coming back from iraq are fubared in the head? Because they went from lily-white to scaping the bottom of the human barrel in 2 weeks.
Can you provide evidence for this claim?
[[Paul Hardcastle]] and [[posttraumatic stress disorder]] may suffice.
If all wikipedia ever does is help war survivors cope, that will be reason enough to have built it.
Can you provide evidence that this is posible?
Is it possible to reduce the number of young girls beeing (unwanted) pregnant by telling tham about the mechanics of pregnancy?
[[Paul Hardcastle]] and [[posttraumatic stress disorder]] may suffice.
Nope because they to suuport your claim that it is the contrast between people's normal condition and combat conditions that cause the problem.
Is it possible to reduce the number of young girls beeing (unwanted) pregnant by telling tham about the mechanics of pregnancy?
False analogy a better one would be to show pregant women aborted fetuses so they will be less tramertised if it happens to them (and even that one doesn't really work)
--- Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote: ...
It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists, especially ones who are as ruthless as these.
Then Auschwitz pics are out of the question, right?
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Christopher Mahan (chris_mahan@yahoo.com) [050216 14:27]:
--- Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists, especially ones who are as ruthless as these.
Then Auschwitz pics are out of the question, right?
I don't know if anyone's working on code for the inline vs link user option, but it would probably beat the fork that appears to be coming on the issue.
- d.
David Gerard said:
Christopher Mahan (chris_mahan@yahoo.com) [050216 14:27]:
--- Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists, especially ones who are as ruthless as these.
Then Auschwitz pics are out of the question, right?
I don't know if anyone's working on code for the inline vs link user option, but it would probably beat the fork that appears to be coming on the issue.
Are forks such a bad idea? It would solve the child-safe problem. The adult Wikipedia could possibly also drop a lot of the trivia that are mostly of interest to children. TV show episode guides, comics, games and the like. Presumably article and history information could still be interchanged.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Are forks such a bad idea? It would solve the child-safe problem. The adult Wikipedia could possibly also drop a lot of the trivia that are mostly of interest to children. TV show episode guides, comics, games and the like. Presumably article and history information could still be interchanged.
Can you think of any more ways to be insulting to adults whose interests differ from your own?
Nicholas Knight said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Are forks such a bad idea? It would solve the child-safe problem. The adult Wikipedia could possibly also drop a lot of the trivia that are mostly of interest to children. TV show episode guides, comics, games and the like. Presumably article and history information could still be interchanged.
Can you think of any more ways to be insulting to adults whose interests differ from your own?
I withdraw my insulting suggestion (which was not intended as it has been received) unreservedly.
On 2/16/05 9:39 AM, "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
David Gerard said:
Christopher Mahan (chris_mahan@yahoo.com) [050216 14:27]:
--- Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists, especially ones who are as ruthless as these.
Then Auschwitz pics are out of the question, right?
I don't know if anyone's working on code for the inline vs link user option, but it would probably beat the fork that appears to be coming on the issue.
Are forks such a bad idea? It would solve the child-safe problem. The adult Wikipedia could possibly also drop a lot of the trivia that are mostly of interest to children. TV show episode guides, comics, games and the like. Presumably article and history information could still be interchanged.
Yeah, television, comics, games -- trivia for children. Boo, popular and low culture. Why won't everyone realize that the only things they should be thinking about are Handelian overtures and eating brussels sprouts?
I adore Handel and good fresh brussels sprouts, but really. Contemporary and popular art and culture are not trivia for children.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Are forks such a bad idea?
Yes, forks are a bad idea, because the text in the forked articles inevitably diverges. You would end up with different articles on the same subject contradicting each other.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Are forks such a bad idea?
Yes, forks are a bad idea, because the text in the forked articles inevitably diverges. You would end up with different articles on the same subject contradicting each other.
Is this necessarily a problem?
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Are forks such a bad idea?
Yes, forks are a bad idea, because the text in the forked articles inevitably diverges. You would end up with different articles on the same subject contradicting each other.
Is this necessarily a problem?
Yes. If two articles on the same subject contradict each other, then either we haven't done a proper NPOV job in writing them, or one is wrong.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
JAY JG said:
[on forks]
You would end up with different articles on the same subject contradicting each other.
Is this necessarily a problem?
Yes. If two articles on the same subject contradict each other, then either we haven't done a proper NPOV job in writing them, or one is wrong.
I don't agree with that premise. Different writers will have different information and will produce divergent articles that may be reasonably NPOV. There is no perfect NPOV article on any subject, so NPOV articles on the same subject will naturally differ according to their editors. As I said in an earlier email, I think the "too few eyes" argument convinces me. I think divergence could be an asset if we could learn how to harness it.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:39:58 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
David Gerard said:
Christopher Mahan (chris_mahan@yahoo.com) [050216 14:27]:
--- Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists, especially ones who are as ruthless as these.
Then Auschwitz pics are out of the question, right?
I don't know if anyone's working on code for the inline vs link user option, but it would probably beat the fork that appears to be coming on the issue.
Are forks such a bad idea? It would solve the child-safe problem. The adult Wikipedia could possibly also drop a lot of the trivia that are mostly of interest to children. TV show episode guides, comics, games and the like. Presumably article and history information could still be interchanged.
Duplicated efforts, divergent versions, and a fewer eyeballs: forks are an exceptionally bad idea.
If it's terribly important to have whole articles without requiring users to click to separated images, I suggest template-driven transclusion as used on [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]].
A more intuitive method of transclussion was made by Violet/riga. It involves titling the images based on the article name and using {{PAGENAME}} in the image tag so that alternate versions (ie "Autofellatio (no pictures)") will still show the caption but break the image. I've just added a demonstration of this technique on my userpage ([[User:Cool Hand Luke]]) since it's no longer on Violetriga's.
Using this sort of technique we avoid forking (both versions are generated from the same stock), and we give even technically unsavvy users the choice whether to see the image or not by simply clicking a link. Furthermore, addressing the concern some have over linking images, we don't deny readers the ability to see a whole article with images in context.
I believe giving users an actual choice is much better than lecturing them about how incompetent they are with their web browser or chastising them for looking up a topic in the first place.
I'm one of those that might read autofellatio, but would look it up without the expectation, much less a desire, to see that trashy copyrightvio.
Cool Hand Luke said:
Duplicated efforts, divergent versions, and a fewer eyeballs: forks are an exceptionally bad idea.
Yes, the "fewer eyeballs" thing worries me a little. This need not be the case, however. We just need more intelligent software.>
If it's terribly important to have whole articles without requiring users to click to separated images, I suggest template-driven transclusion as used on [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]].
Yuk! Editing is broken, templates are broken. No, we would be better off putting the effort into educating our users in the use of a web browser. Particularly on a site like Wikipedia, we will never be able to guarantee that the user won't hit a page containing something he doesn't like. Men fellating themselves are absolutely not the most objectionable images on Wikipedia, though for some reason that image is the one causing about as much fuss as Abu Ghraib and clitoris (sorry about the wording, but you know what I mean).