Image is offensive to me, should be shown inline : 3
Image is not offensive to me, should be shown inline : 4 (with one person who probably did not understand the question well)
That makes : 7/44 (perhaps 6/44)
------- Image is offensive to me, should be linked to or removed : 14
Image is not offensive to me, should be linked to or removed : 16
Haven't looked at image, should be linked to or removed : 7
That makes : 37/44 (perhaps 38/44), hence 84 %
-------
It is interesting to note that 7 people voluntarily did NOT want to look at it. We can suppose that these people would *really* prefer to have the choice to click on the picture, than being forced to see it.
I would like to note as well, that afaik, currently, when an image is listed on votes for deletion, I think the % required for removal is 80% (or something like this ?)
If some people find a picture offensive, and want it not to be displayed online, they will have two possibilities * campaigning for plain deletion (80%) * campaigning for inline linking (???)
Obviously, ??? can not be a % over 80%. If a number of 95% is required to label a picture "offensive", that means
*first that people will rather try to have it plain deleted (not exactly the best way to achieve a consensus, and truely potential censorship) *second that the decision will be taken in truth by 6% of people (the tyranny of the minority)
This seems a very strange way to manage decisions than to have 6% of people impose their opinion, and second to favor extrem solutions over a more consensual one.
I would think that as soon as there is a question over a picture, we roughly decide that more than 80% for removal lead the picture to be removed. If less than 80% but more than 50% have a problem with the picture being displayed online, then the image is * kept in the db * not directly visible in the article * visible through a link, either in a gallery or the image page itself * that a warning message is displayed in the article (general mediawiki message for example) * that the link to the image is made "proeminent", so as not to be missed by those interested (bold for example)
--------
Future :
Additionnaly, I think we could go forward setting a couple of categories of potentially offensive pictures, such as * sex * violence * nudity * ...
When the category system is on, a picture labelled offensive (so, between 50% and 80% of opinion) could belong to one of these categories. People might choose to display one or several of these categories or not in their prefs.
If the filter is OFF for a category : the image is displayed online If the filter is ON for a category : the image is available through a link
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Future :
Additionnaly, I think we could go forward setting a couple of categories of potentially offensive pictures, such as
- sex
- violence
- nudity
- ...
Let's not forget images of: * Elections * Demonstrations * Medical procedures * Diseases * Weaponry/bombmaking * Cracking (in the computer cracking sense) * Drug paraphenalia * Bioagents * Chemical Agents * Nuclear and Atomic Manufacturing / Processing Equipment * Religious symbols * American Presidents (it seems to really chafe some people to look at GW) * WWII-era paraphenalia (France/Germany especially)
I'm not being facetious, unfortunately. I see and read a lot of non-US media (mostly really) and it's amazing the number of things people find offensive.
Oh, forgot about animals too: * Spiders * large cats hunting and feeding * Any insect up close * Snakes
* slaugtherhouses
I am sure each culture is able to add to the list.
I just looked on the W for a page about that, but only came up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity Maybe there is a page for image classification based on cultural/political sensitivities.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861
On Thu, 13 May 2004 08:08:51 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote (order changed at replier's whims):
- Medical procedures
- slaughterhouses
Sure. Blood gore internal organs ick yuck.
- Diseases
Depending on the effects? I suppose, yeah, possibly.
- Bioagents
- Chemical Agents
What's to see here? A vial or barrel of the stuff? Or the effects on humans?
- Cracking (in the computer cracking sense)
We have images of this? Let me post a screenshot of nmap, eh? :)
- WWII-era paraphenalia (France/Germany especially)
- Drug paraphenalia
Hmm. This bears some thought, but if you're looking up an article about the Nazi party, I don't know why you shouldn't expect a Nazi flag/insignia/thing.
- Weaponry/bombmaking
- Nuclear and Atomic Manufacturing / Processing Equipment
- Religious symbols
- Demonstrations
- American Presidents (it seems to really chafe some people to look at GW)
- Elections
These proceed from mildly facetious to utterly facetious. :)
I'm not being facetious, unfortunately. I see and read a lot of non-US media (mostly really) and it's amazing the number of things people find offensive.
There's a difference between an image of a thing someone finds offensive and an image which someone finds offensive. I'm offended by... hmm, how about [[Kim Il Sung]]? I am not offended by his image, particularly in a place such as an article about the guy. On the other hand, I may be in for shock and surprise if I happen onto an article about, say, [[Ebola]] and see the results of the disease.
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
- Bioagents
- Chemical Agents
What's to see here? A vial or barrel of the stuff? Or the effects on humans?
- Cracking (in the computer cracking sense)
We have images of this? Let me post a screenshot of nmap, eh? :)
- WWII-era paraphenalia (France/Germany especially)
- Drug paraphenalia
Hmm. This bears some thought, but if you're looking up an article about the Nazi party, I don't know why you shouldn't expect a Nazi flag/insignia/thing.
Look up the issue with yahoo and the french govt 2000-2001
- Weaponry/bombmaking
- Nuclear and Atomic Manufacturing / Processing Equipment
- Religious symbols
- Demonstrations
- American Presidents (it seems to really chafe some people to
look at GW)
- Elections
These proceed from mildly facetious to utterly facetious. :)
In China, people are not allowed by state media to see images of a free electoral process.
Does a picture of Adolf Hitler in uniform evoke an emotional resonse to you? North Korea's Kim Jung Il evokes a similar response to Japanese (I know, my wife is Japanese, and she HATES his guts. She gets all emotional when she sees his photo) Likewise, Bush is seen by people around the world as a reprehensible evil man, and seeing his photo makes them angry (an emotional response if ever there was one)
There's a difference between an image of a thing someone finds offensive and an image which someone finds offensive.
And the difference is?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861
<snipped> Yeah, I know about the French government and Yahoo! . . . I will refrain from impersonal attacks on the French and their government in this space. =/
There's a difference between an image of a thing someone finds offensive and an image which someone finds offensive.
And the difference is?
Consider it this way. (The following is a guideline, and does not apply in all circumstances): If you were to show an image of, say, a person, to someone who knows nothing about the subject, would they be offended? Or to some random kid: to them, Hitler is just a guy with a moustache (who is yelling something and sticking out his arm with our picture...) The image of the guy is not offensive. It's the guy himself who offends.
Consider an image of a flag being burned. It's just a piece of fabric on fire (though there's probably some sort of lovely right-wing local yokel gun nut holding it as well :). The image itself is not offensive, it is what the image displays which may be offensive. (It would be suitable for an article on flag burning, if not an article on flags or the particular country whose flag is being burned).
Consider this guy who has been beheaded. There's easily something disturbing about seeing the guy's head off, no? The guy himself is pretty inoffensive, I think most would say. There is additionally offense at the sociopolitical+etc aspects as well, however.
It's more a matter of when the *display* of the image is offensive rather than what the image itself shows. This would include grossing people out with images of severed heads, the effects of nasty diseases, et cetera, as well as (possibly) the display of images such as that of the penis and clitoris, for possible reasons related to modesty. However, with an article such as Hitler/Kim Jong Il/the KKK, it's reasonable to have pictures of the actual people there. And since I'm dragging in the KKK, I'd say that it would be reasonable to have inline pictures of them in hoods, burning crosses... but we shouldn't have *inline* pictures of any victims all bloody or mangled or anything like that.
General tip: if it involves lots of blood and/or gore, people are liable to be disturbed by the picture itself, not the person who it is of.
You are making it too complex to blur the issue Chris :-)
Now, if user A absolutely want a special category of [[image:offending elections]], by all mean, let us create this category with a huge smile
Then, when User A list a picture to be set in [[image:offending elections]], let us have a poll on it; One vote to put it in the category, 99 votes not to put it. Hence, the picture is not listed in the category
After a year, gently and discreetly comment on that neat [[image:offending elections]] category, still empty of any offending picture. Suggest deletion.
Wait 2 weeks.
Delete the category.
Now, you should trust users to be reasonable. If a category is unreasonable, there will not be consensus to put any picture in it :-)
Anthere
Christopher Mahan a écrit:
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Future :
Additionnaly, I think we could go forward setting a couple of categories of potentially offensive pictures, such as
- sex
- violence
- nudity
- ...
Let's not forget images of:
- Elections
- Demonstrations
- Medical procedures
- Diseases
- Weaponry/bombmaking
- Cracking (in the computer cracking sense)
- Drug paraphenalia
- Bioagents
- Chemical Agents
- Nuclear and Atomic Manufacturing / Processing Equipment
- Religious symbols
- American Presidents (it seems to really chafe some people to look
at GW)
- WWII-era paraphenalia (France/Germany especially)
I'm not being facetious, unfortunately. I see and read a lot of non-US media (mostly really) and it's amazing the number of things people find offensive.
Oh, forgot about animals too:
Spiders
large cats hunting and feeding
Any insect up close
Snakes
slaugtherhouses
I am sure each culture is able to add to the list.
I just looked on the W for a page about that, but only came up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity Maybe there is a page for image classification based on cultural/political sensitivities.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861