There is a legitimate question about how much human nudity should be shown in Wikipedia.
On the one hand, anyone who types /wiki/penis at the end of http://www.wikipedia.org has no one to blame but himself if he finds an article there about a human penis. And if he or she is offended that the article goes beyond its excretory role to describe its role in reproduction or *shudder* "getting it on", tough luck. It's like visiting Las Vegas and being shocked to discover that gambling goes on there.
On the other hand, many of us hope that the Wikipedia could produce a version suitable for distribution to schools. And we all know how prissy (or protective) some schools are about giving access to 'obscene' information or images. The general rule is, the lower the age group, the more "protection" they should get. Note that this is from the POV of the "protectors"; others say that if the kids aren't old enough to be interested, they'll just turn the page.
For acceptance, however, those of us with a "no holds barred" attitude might do well to consider the feelings of the "guardians of youth". This means, either leave stuff out of Wikipedia (unthinkable!) or somehow creating an expurgated (or bowdlerized) edition.
This might not be so traumatic as you'd think. Many school subjects are graded, with math probably having the finest gradations. "Age-appropriate" materials are common in U.S. public schools, and, presumably elsewhere as well.
But the first "print" or "plastic" (DVD) edition of Wikipedia probably ought to be un-censored. Its target would be adults.
Perhaps if enough people get their hands on a physical copy of Wikipedia, one of them will decide to make a "school edition". I don't think we (the content providers) have to worry about that right now.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 03:09 pm, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
There is a legitimate question about how much human nudity should be shown in Wikipedia.
In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it legitimate because I don't consider nudity offensive. (I have previously given the example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at their own unclothed body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous. (And a sad reflection on the influence of religious fundamentalists on societies the world over.)
For acceptance, however, those of us with a "no holds barred" attitude might do well to consider the feelings of the "guardians of youth". This means, either leave stuff out of Wikipedia (unthinkable!) or somehow creating an expurgated (or bowdlerized) edition.
The first suggestion is untenable. The second suggestion will have a lot of followers. Sadly. If someone wants to provide a censored (and let's not mix words here, it truly is a censorship) version of wikipedia, they are free to do so under the GFDL.
As far as I'm concerned, they can leave out whatever they want: No nudity, No criticism of religion, No blasphemy, No pictures of women (special feature for the fundamentalist islamicists), No mentioning of the word "God", No criticism of Israel/Saudi Arabia. No criticism of al-Qaida/Bush. No information on anti-terrorism measures (could help the terrorists, right?) No information on birth control. Human closed-mindedness literally has no bounds.
What I do vigorously object to is doing something like this under the auspices of wikimedia. This means there should be no integration of a "censor" function in either wikipedia or in the wikipedia 1.0 effort. If such a project exists under the wikimedia umbrella, I will ask that none of my donation will in any way go towards this. I know that I (and everyone else) has donated with the full knowledge that wikimedia will do with the money what they/we see fit, and that the donators don't have any real say in the process. But I would consider it ethical to establish a seperate "censorpedia fund" (you're more than welcome to use that term ;-).
As an aside, I've been doing some research into the development of L'Encyclopédie (for wikipedia, of course). They too had tensions between those that wanted to censor information in order to have wider adoption, and those that believed that they should be able to publish information seen as offensive (or in the particular case of the Encyclopédie blasphemous) by portions of the population. Funny enough, they didn't seem to be as prude in regards to nudity as some of us are. I hope nobody is offended by the fact that they will see a penis in a picture from the Encyclopédie that I have added to [[anatomy]]. ;-)
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes wrote:
In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it legitimate because I don't consider nudity offensive. (I have previously given the example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at their own unclothed body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous. (And a sad reflection on the influence of religious fundamentalists on societies the world over.)
Ah, but should we add some graphic photographs to [[anus]], [[feces]], and a variety of other subjects people perhaps wouldn't want to see images of? After all, unless you're offended by your own bowel movements, you can't possibly find images of feces offensive, right?
And even if you think that's alright, I'm sure I can find *some* image you'd prefer not to look at. We have to draw the line somewhere unless Wikipedia is just going to become rotten.com and offend absolutely everyone. Where we draw it is a subjective judgment.
In any case, I'm less worried about offending people per se than in simply forcing people to see these images. What's wrong with making them a link? Many people, myself included, do not want to see a picture of [[penis]] inline in the article, and are quite capable of clicking on the link if we did at some point wish to see the picture. This is not because I am offended by penises or pictures thereof, but simply because I consider it a private matter and don't generally wish to be accosted by them for no good reason. And I think adding them inline adds very little vs. "click here", so don't consider it a good reason.
Same goes for other photographs, such as [[feces]], [[car accident]], and etc. We should have all these photographs (up to some very high level--perhaps we shouldn't have goatse.cx photographs), but we shouldn't have them all inline. So those who choose to see them can see them. I don't see how this is censorship, since we are not removing the information, or even making it hard to get.
It seems, on the contrary, that there is a small segment of people here trying to push a POV that nudity (or at least pictures of nudity) ought to be acceptable in public, and are resisting any efforts to compromise in a manner that would prevent their own personal moral agenda from being advanced.
-Mark
Delirium-
In any case, I'm less worried about offending people per se than in simply forcing people to see these images. What's wrong with making them a link? Many people, myself included, do not want to see a picture of [[penis]] inline in the article, and are quite capable of clicking on the link if we did at some point wish to see the picture.
Many people do not want to see a picture of a woman in public without a veil, and are quite capable of clicking on the link if they did at some point wish to see the picture.
It seems, on the contrary, that there is a small segment of people here trying to push a POV that nudity (or at least pictures of nudity) ought to be acceptable in public, and are resisting any efforts to compromise in a manner that would prevent their own personal moral agenda from being advanced.
"It seems that there is a small segment of people here trying to push the POV that women walking in public (or at least pictures of women walking in public) ought to be acceptable, and are resisting any efforts to compromise in a manner that would prevent their own personal moral agenda from being advanced."
Exclusion of such content is fundamentally irreconcilable with our neutrality policy, and should only happen in cases where we can assume near universal offensiveness. This clearly advances an agenda - just as doing the opposite would. Neutrality is the lack of involvement -- philosophically speaking, as soon as we have decided to create an encyclopedia, we have at the very least taken the position that bringing knowledge to human beings is a good thing to do. By making our NPOV policy non-negotiable, we have also taken the position that Wikipedia does not subscribe to absolute truths, but presents all points of view instead.
Combine these two "agendas" and you arrive at the inevitable outcome that we *have* to include such images. Removing them would mean that we fail in terms of providing knowledge, and hiding them as links means that we fail in terms of being free of bias.
We make an exception to the latter rule in order to further the former: We link pictures that we consider almost universally offensive (sometimes with warnings) in order to avoid turning away readers, and in order to get them to actually read the article that contains the pictures. But as soon as we start pandering to local cultural biases, we inevitably fail in both regards.
The inclusion itself must be allowed not because of a particular *personal* agenda. It must be allowed because it is our *collective* agenda to provide knowledge without bias, and keeping Wikipedia as free of censorship as reasonably possible is necessary to do so.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Delirium-
In any case, I'm less worried about offending people per se than in simply forcing people to see these images. What's wrong with making them a link? Many people, myself included, do not want to see a picture of [[penis]] inline in the article, and are quite capable of clicking on the link if we did at some point wish to see the picture.
Many people do not want to see a picture of a woman in public without a veil, and are quite capable of clicking on the link if they did at some point wish to see the picture.
It seems, on the contrary, that there is a small segment of people here trying to push a POV that nudity (or at least pictures of nudity) ought to be acceptable in public, and are resisting any efforts to compromise in a manner that would prevent their own personal moral agenda from being advanced.
"It seems that there is a small segment of people here trying to push the POV that women walking in public (or at least pictures of women walking in public) ought to be acceptable, and are resisting any efforts to compromise in a manner that would prevent their own personal moral agenda from being advanced."
Exclusion of such content is fundamentally irreconcilable with our neutrality policy, and should only happen in cases where we can assume near universal offensiveness. This clearly advances an agenda - just as doing the opposite would. Neutrality is the lack of involvement -- philosophically speaking, as soon as we have decided to create an encyclopedia, we have at the very least taken the position that bringing knowledge to human beings is a good thing to do. By making our NPOV policy non-negotiable, we have also taken the position that Wikipedia does not subscribe to absolute truths, but presents all points of view instead.
It seems that you are assuming what you find personally offensive has "near universal offensiveness", and what you do not find personally offensive does not. For example, I'd argue that close-up pictures of genitalia are considered offensive by a similar proportion of the world's population as pictures of someone slitting their wrist (the latter appear quite often in mainstream movies, for example, while the former generally only appear in pornographic movies). So then we'd have to include those too. And if our article on [[feces]] has pictures of feces, our article on [[clitoris]] has a detailed photo of a clitoris, our article on [[suicide methods]] (hypothetical; I'm not sure if such an article exists and Wikipedia is too slow to check at the moment) includes photos of slit wrists, and so on, a large proportion of Wikipedia will simply be unreadable by a large number of people. I certainly wouldn't read it, anyway, and I'm more liberal in these matters than most people I know.
You sound like you may be arguing that close-up pictures of a clitoris are of a similar level of offensiveness to photos of women without a veil, which is simply not true: the former are far more offensive to far more people. It is true that they do not offend everyone, but I think they offend enough people to make it a poor idea to include them inline, much as slit wrists and feces and other things that a very large proportion of people don't particularly want to see casually unless they're looking for that photo on purpose.
-Mark
Delirium-
It seems that you are assuming what you find personally offensive has "near universal offensiveness", and what you do not find personally offensive does not.
I'm willing to tolerate quite a lot of images that I find personally offensive. For example, I tolerate and defend a link to goatse.cx, even though I find that site highly offensive. I'm personally no big fan of violence, but I would defend the inclusion of such pictures where they are useful.
It is simply not true that I am arguing to justify my own moral preconceptions. I am arguing for minimizing censorship. I think I have a very good track record of doing so consistently and without bias. You appear to be advocating a ban in explicit imagery, on the other hand, that purely suits your personal feelings. Before accusing me of bias, you should reflect on your own.
For example, I'd argue that close-up pictures of genitalia are considered offensive by a similar proportion of the world's population as pictures of someone slitting their wrist (the latter appear quite often in mainstream movies, for example, while the former generally only appear in pornographic movies). So then we'd have to include those too. And if our article on [[feces]] has pictures of feces, our article on [[clitoris]] has a detailed photo of a clitoris, our article on [[suicide methods]] (hypothetical; I'm not sure if such an article exists and Wikipedia is too slow to check at the moment) includes photos of slit wrists, and so on, a large proportion of Wikipedia will simply be unreadable by a large number of people. I certainly wouldn't read it, anyway, and I'm more liberal in these matters than most people I know.
The fact that you compare human body parts to suicide methods and excrements is somewhat disturbing, but let's not get into this. Just some basic cause and effect. Feces are prone to carry disease, that is why most human beings are taught to avoid touching or even eating them (there may also be a biological taboo that is triggered by the smell and/or taste; note that baby feces smell differently). Similarly, most human beings with a functional brain avoid pain, as such, events that are likely to cause pain or death, as well as images of pain and death, are likely to trigger the emotional associations that have been built through a lifetime to teach avoidance thereof.
I challenge you to point to a single culture that had a notable absence of the feces taboo. I doubt that one exists. However, it is easy to see that many cultures have much weaker nudity taboos or none at all (the latter usually living in warm climates where clothing is not required -- hiding our bodies constantly obviously creates a mystery about them). Some societies have condoned or required suicide in certain circumstances, but the act itself has usually been a private one. Some cultures celebrate violence and sadism, but that is simply the opposite of a taboo; we need not pander to it by including as many gory pictures as we can find (nor should we endorse a violence taboo by including none).
Instead, we should apply the standard of maximizing our usefulness and neutrality. When writing about suicide methods, illustrations of different methods would be entirely appropriate. (I'm fairly certain people would trot out the "how-to" argument to prevent such an article from getting too instructive, although I disagree with that logic.) Photos and blood add little to the usefulness. In articles about body parts, photos help with the identification and should not replace but complement illustrations. In how-to articles, abstract illustrations are often more useful than photos, but if someone came up with a good, not unreasonably violent "suicide methods" video, hey, why not.
As for suicides in movies, they are rarely very explicit, unless the movies are made for shocking purposes, which validates the taboo rathern than refuting it. Nudity in movies on the other hand obviously varies a great degree by culture -- I've seen full erections on regular German daytime TV, not sure about clitorises.
You sound like you may be arguing that close-up pictures of a clitoris are of a similar level of offensiveness to photos of women without a veil, which is simply not true: the former are far more offensive to far more people.
Yeah, because the latter are a subset of the former ;-). Current dominant western attitudes regarding sexuality are descendants of views that culminated in anti masturbation electric schock devices and [[bathing house]]s. There is a clear relationship between these attitudes that cannot realistically be denied.
The "near universal" standard seems to pass your "feces and suicide" test. Feces is almost universally considered repulsing, and suicide is almost universally a private matter (justifying some toning down of the imagery). I therefore submit that this test is fully sufficient as our guideline for deciding whether and where we want to censor ourselves.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
The fact that you compare human body parts to suicide methods and excrements is somewhat disturbing, but let's not get into this. Just some basic cause and effect. Feces are prone to carry disease, that is why most human beings are taught to avoid touching or even eating them (there may also be a biological taboo that is triggered by the smell and/or taste; note that baby feces smell differently). Similarly, most human beings with a functional brain avoid pain, as such, events that are likely to cause pain or death, as well as images of pain and death, are likely to trigger the emotional associations that have been built through a lifetime to teach avoidance thereof.
This is an argument that feces is "correctly" considered offensive, while those who consider nudity offensive are incorrect. Such arguments are completely irrelevant to the current discussion: it is not your (or anyone's) place to decide whether it is "natural" to avoid pain or feces and "unnatural" to avoid nudity. It is a simply fact that a great many people consider explicit close-up images of a clitoris offensive--in fact, perhaps there are more people who consider such photos offensive than there are who consider photos of feces offensive. You can argue they're wrong, but I don't think that personal viewpoint ought to influence the encyclopedia.
In fact, I think people who consider close-up photos of a clitoris *appropriate* for public display are probably a fairly small minority, worldwide.
-Mark
To sort of clarify my viewpoint on this:
I'm not advocating that we remove any of these images, unless they're simply completely uninformative. I'm merely requesting that we not put them in-line, and instead have them as a link (an internal [[media:...]] link). Simply an accurately labeled link, not a "WARNING: Some readers might find this offensive" link or anything like that.
Personally, I have no problem seeing these images, but I don't want to *always* see them. Having seen our clitoris photograph once, I don't need to see it again if I happen to check the article again for some information. If, for some reason, I do wish to see it again, I can always click on "photograph of a clitoris" and do so. Same with suicide-methods photographs: I think some could be informative (say, a wrist-slitting one), but it should be possible to read the text without seeing them every time.
This still, of course, requires some standards for what is potentially bothersome enough to include as a link instead of as an inline photograph, and I agree these standards should not be overly restrictive. But I do think they should be somewhat more restrictive than what some others are proposing. I'd actually be alright with nude photographs of people inline in the [[human]] article, if done in a scientific style "standing upright with arms at their sides" way. But I'd prefer close-up photographs of genitalia be placed in a link. Basically anything a large number of people are likely to be somewhat shocked by.
Since it came up, same goes actually with [[lung]]: a diagram of a lung should be fine to include of course, but an actual photograph of, say, a removed lung, or a lung in situ in a cut-open chest, or so on, is something a lot of people don't want to see every time they read that article. Similarly with photos of entrails in [[intestines]], photos of open-heart surgery in [[heart]], and so on ("click here for a photograph of open-heart surgery").
I guess I don't see why it'd really be censorship either, since we're just shuffling the information around, not actually removing it or even making it hard to get.
-Mark
Delirium-
This is an argument that feces is "correctly" considered offensive, while those who consider nudity offensive are incorrect.
Nonsense. It is an argument to explain why one taboo is more widespread than the other. I have no specific statistics, neither do you. Unless you can come up with them, we can only go with arguments. And the arguments I have shown clearly demonstrate why one taboo (feces) can be considered "nearly universally" widespread and the other cannot. You have utterly failed to refute this argument. We can conclude that the "nearly universal" standard is sufficient, since you used feces as a "slippery slope" argument (no pun intended).
Regards,
Erik
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 06:16 pm, Delirium wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it
legitimate
because I don't consider nudity offensive. (I have previously given the example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at their
own
unclothed body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous. (And a sad reflection on the influence of religious fundamentalists on societies the world over.)
Ah, but should we add some graphic photographs to [[anus]], [[feces]], and a variety of other subjects people perhaps wouldn't want to see images of? After all, unless you're offended by your own bowel movements, you can't possibly find images of feces offensive, right?
That is correct. I see my feces nearly every day, and recognise that defecation is a normal and natural act. I am not in the least bit offended by the sight of feces. People study feces of animals to infer what they ate, etc. I don't find these people to be morally reprehensible characters because they are interested in feces. Similarly for anuses.
And even if you think that's alright, I'm sure I can find *some* image you'd prefer not to look at. We have to draw the line somewhere unless Wikipedia is just going to become rotten.com and offend absolutely everyone. Where we draw it is a subjective judgment.
Ah, but you fail to see that even if there exist images that I would prefer not to look at, I would not seek them out. You make it sound as though I am advocating putting pictures of anuses on the cover of the encyclopedia. Another false assumption is that if (in the hypothetical) I prefer not to look at pictures of self-mutilation, I would want you to take the decision to remove an exemplary picture from the article [[self-mutilation]]. This is not the case. I would firstly not actively seek such a picture, and if I had stumbled upon it accidentally I would simply look away.
In any case, I'm less worried about offending people per se than in simply forcing people to see these images. What's wrong with making them a link? Many people, myself included, do not want to see a picture of [[penis]] inline in the article, and are quite capable of clicking on the link if we did at some point wish to see the picture. This is not because I am offended by penises or pictures thereof, but simply because I consider it a private matter and don't generally wish to be accosted by them for no good reason. And I think adding them inline adds very little vs. "click here", so don't consider it a good reason.
"Forcing" is a very strong word. Do you consider yourself "forced" to see a penis when you, of your own volition visit [[penis]]? And when you visit [[anatomy]]? Who decides what is considered "force"? Regarding linking to images. I did not in any way state that I oppose the idea of having images that are almost universally offensive located on a page that people need to click to view the image, with a notice that there will be eg. an image of self-mutilation, or of eg. a car-crash. You are misrepresenting my view in order to be able to attack it. Now, I don't think that it is plausible that a version of wikipedia that is censored in accordance with the moral doctrine of the puritans would include images of a penis, anus, feces, etc. with the limitation that they would have to be clicked and not displayed inline. Don't tell me that you honestly think that they would settle for that.
Same goes for other photographs, such as [[feces]], [[car accident]], and etc. We should have all these photographs (up to some very high level--perhaps we shouldn't have goatse.cx photographs), but we shouldn't have them all inline. So those who choose to see them can see them. I don't see how this is censorship, since we are not removing the information, or even making it hard to get.
But in which encyclopedic article would you include the goatse.cx picture? Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I did not state that not having an image inline is censorship. Perhaps I should have been clearer on this point.
I have made what I believe to be a well-founded argument that we should not have an officially censored version of wikipedia. If people want to have a censored version, they should (and can) go ahead and do so. But I argue against integrating any censorship into either wikipedia or wikipedia 1.0. You have not presented any argument that censorship of wikipedia or wikipedia 1.0 to remove potential and/or actual offensive material beside the one that I myself have mentioned: popularity. And this is where I find that we step onto a slippery slope. I know that some people consider the slippery slope argument a fallacy, but I shall employ it here nonetheless. If we submit to the censorship of the american puritans, why not to that of fundamental islamists? Why not to that of those who do not whish to have "God" spelled out? Why not to that of those who do not wish to see pictoral representations of deities? Then you have to start arguing that "my offense at seeing a penis is justified", whereas "your offense at seeing a depicition of a deity is not justified".
It seems, on the contrary, that there is a small segment of people here trying to push a POV that nudity (or at least pictures of nudity) ought to be acceptable in public, and are resisting any efforts to compromise in a manner that would prevent their own personal moral agenda from being advanced.
As Erik said in his response to this point, our goal as an encyclopedia is to provide encyclopedic knowledge. There are probably very few people that would disagree that a picture of a penis adds encyclopedic knowledge to the article [[penis]] (otherwise why do we include pictures at all?). Note that our goal is not to provide a sanitised version of reality but, I repeat, to provide encyclopedic knowledge. The onus is therefore on the censors to justify the removal of encyclopedic knowledge from an encyclopedia. I have just latched onto the nudity issue because that seemed like a particularly relevant example of people trying to remove encyclopedic knowldge from an encyclopedia. Whether or not I find nudity offensive is not the issue - Although I will freely admit that I did not hesitate to point out the stupidity of finding nudity offensive ;-)
Best, Sascha Noyes
On Jan 13, 2004, at 11:58 PM, Sascha Noyes wrote:
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 06:16 pm, Delirium wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it
legitimate
because I don't consider nudity offensive. (I have previously given the example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at their
own
unclothed body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous. (And a sad reflection on the influence of religious fundamentalists on societies the world over.)
Ah, but should we add some graphic photographs to [[anus]], [[feces]], and a variety of other subjects people perhaps wouldn't want to see images of? After all, unless you're offended by your own bowel movements, you can't possibly find images of feces offensive, right?
That is correct. I see my feces nearly every day, and recognise that defecation is a normal and natural act. I am not in the least bit offended by the sight of feces. People study feces of animals to infer what they ate, etc. I don't find these people to be morally reprehensible characters because they are interested in feces. Similarly for anuses.
How many anuses do *you* see per day? I don't see any, myself. Not even my own. So what's so great about a picture of an anus? Will it help you recognize one if you see it in the wild? :)
It seems like a diagram, rather than a picture, would be much more informative, which is obviously the point. And if we offend fewer people, so much the better.
Peter
--- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 11:22 am, Peter Jaros wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 11:58 PM, Sascha Noyes wrote:
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 06:16 pm, Delirium wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it
legitimate
because I don't consider nudity offensive. (I have previously given the example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at their
own
unclothed body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous. (And a sad reflection on the influence of religious fundamentalists on societies the world over.)
Ah, but should we add some graphic photographs to [[anus]], [[feces]], and a variety of other subjects people perhaps wouldn't want to see images of? After all, unless you're offended by your own bowel movements, you can't possibly find images of feces offensive, right?
That is correct. I see my feces nearly every day, and recognise that defecation is a normal and natural act. I am not in the least bit offended by the sight of feces. People study feces of animals to infer what they ate, etc. I don't find these people to be morally reprehensible characters because they are interested in feces. Similarly for anuses.
How many anuses do *you* see per day? I don't see any, myself. Not even my own. So what's so great about a picture of an anus? Will it help you recognize one if you see it in the wild? :)
It seems like a diagram, rather than a picture, would be much more informative, which is obviously the point. And if we offend fewer people, so much the better.
Peter
How many Lungs do *you* see per day? I don't see any, myself. Not even my own. So, one might ask oneself: "What's so great about a picture of an Lung"? "Will it help you recognize one if you see it in the wild"? :)
Actually, it will. ;-)
I think pictures add information. Not a great deal, mind you. But you could always attempt to argue that wikipedia should have no pictures, because the arguments you have presented against pictures of anuses applies equally to all other pictures. I doubt, however, that you will get very far. I share Erik's opinion that pictures should complement illustrations/diagrams. Again, the onus is on the part of the censors to justify the removal of encyclopedic knowledge from an encyclopedia.
Best, Sascha Noyes
On Jan 14, 2004, at 11:33 AM, Sascha Noyes wrote:
How many Lungs do *you* see per day? I don't see any, myself. Not even my own. So, one might ask oneself: "What's so great about a picture of an Lung"? "Will it help you recognize one if you see it in the wild"? :)
Point taken. I still have a feeling that a picture of a lung is more useful than a picture of an anus. But I can't think of a good reason, so maybe that's just me.
I think pictures add information. Not a great deal, mind you. But you could always attempt to argue that wikipedia should have no pictures, because the arguments you have presented against pictures of anuses applies equally to all other pictures. I doubt, however, that you will get very far. I share Erik's opinion that pictures should complement illustrations/diagrams. Again, the onus is on the part of the censors to justify the removal of encyclopedic knowledge from an encyclopedia.
Hehe...you said "onus"... *giggle* *snicker*
We now return you to your regularly scheduled maturity, already in progress.
Peter
--- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show
Peter Jaros wrote:
It seems like a diagram, rather than a picture, would be much more informative, which is obviously the point. And if we offend fewer people, so much the better.
I think Peter points the way towards a principle that can resolve most, though perhaps not all, of the dilemmas we will face in this area.
The goal of our articles is to be informative, not offensive. It turns out that in most cases (penis, for example) the ways of presenting the content that are offensive are also lacking in terms of informativeness. A photo "in the style of" pornography takes away from our mission of informativeness, while a photo "in the style of" a medical text comports with that mission.
Consider how NPOV can help us to resolve this. Person A says "I think that including this photo is offensive". Person B says "I think that omitting it is censorship, and offensive".
This is not an irreconcilable conflict *in the majority of cases*. A little creative thought may often turn up a way for both parties to be satisfied. Of course, if either side is just hell-bent on refusing to co-operate, not much can be done. But usually, a little WikiLove can go a long way...
Jimmy-
The goal of our articles is to be informative, not offensive. It turns out that in most cases (penis, for example) the ways of presenting the content that are offensive are also lacking in terms of informativeness. A photo "in the style of" pornography takes away from our mission of informativeness, while a photo "in the style of" a medical text comports with that mission.
It's simply not true that a photo of a penis or vagina is not informative. Ironically, it is particularly informative in families where the parents would likely consider it offensive. It helps people to actually identify sexual organs and to understand the wide range in their looks and sizes (many people are anxious to find out whether they are "normal"). Every sex education book that is worth its name contains pictures of genitalia.
I would also like to point out that there is near consensus for inclusion of links, and a slim majority for inclusion of photos (where the minority typically argues that not they, but mysterious "other people" might be offended).
Regards,
Erik
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 11:54 am, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Peter Jaros wrote:
It seems like a diagram, rather than a picture, would be much more informative, which is obviously the point. And if we offend fewer people, so much the better.
I think Peter points the way towards a principle that can resolve most, though perhaps not all, of the dilemmas we will face in this area.
The goal of our articles is to be informative, not offensive. It turns out that in most cases (penis, for example) the ways of presenting the content that are offensive are also lacking in terms of informativeness. A photo "in the style of" pornography takes away from our mission of informativeness, while a photo "in the style of" a medical text comports with that mission.
I am in total agreement that the images should be akin to those seen medical texts. However, I think that the people wo don't want to have pictures of various parts of the human body included in wikipedia won't be satisfied by that.
The question of diagrams vs. images is a very interesting one. Images and diagrams have slightly different aims, in my opinion. The aim of diagrams is to reduce the visual information to a minimum in order to illustrate either the constituent parts or the functionality of a system (or both). An image on the other hand tells us exactly how something looks. Take for example an article on the mars rover. A diagram of the rover would clearly and concisely display what parts it is made up of and how they function and interact. It would not, however give a detailed account of how it looks. While viewing an article on the mars rover which only had a diagram, I would ask myself "but what does it actually look like". As I have stated in anothe email in this thread, I think that images don't add a vast amount of information, but they add relevant and encyclopedic information nonetheless.
Best, Sascha Noyes
On 01/14/04 at 11:22 AM, Peter Jaros rjaros@shaysnet.com said:
So what's so great about a picture of an anus? Will it help you recognize one if you see it in the wild? :)
It seems like a diagram, rather than a picture,
Better yet, a poem:
Sonnet: To the Asshole
Dark, puckered hole: a purple carnation That trembles, nestled among the moss [...]
(Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine, circa 1871)
Perhaps it sounds better in French. Anthère?...
V.
Viajero a écrit:
On 01/14/04 at 11:22 AM, Peter Jaros rjaros@shaysnet.com said:
So what's so great about a picture of an anus? Will it help you recognize one if you see it in the wild? :)
It seems like a diagram, rather than a picture,
Better yet, a poem:
Sonnet: To the Asshole
Dark, puckered hole: a purple carnation That trembles, nestled among the moss [...]
(Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine, circa 1871)
Perhaps it sounds better in French. Anthère?...
V.
L'idole.- Sonnet du Trou du Cul
Obscur et froncé comme un oeillet violet Il respire, humblement tapi parmi la mousse Humide encor d'amour qui suit la fuite douce Des Fesses blanches jusqu'au coeur de son ourlet.
Des filaments pareils à des larmes de lait Ont pleuré, sous le vent cruel qui les repousse, A travers de petits caillots de marne rousse Pour s'aller perdre où la pente les appelait.
Mon Rêve s'aboucha souvent à sa ventouse; Mon âme, du coït matériel jalouse, En fit son larmier fauve et son nid de sanglots.
C'est l'olive pâmée, et la flûte caline, C'est le tube où descend la céleste praline: Chanaan féminin dans les moiteurs enclos !
---------
Fantastique ! Admirable ! How much love those two must have shared for such a splendor !
(feel jalous)
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 03:09 pm, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
There is a legitimate question about how much human nudity should be shown in Wikipedia.
In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it legitimate because I don't consider nudity offensive. (I have previously given the example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at their own unclothed body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous.
Patently ridiculous ? An opinion is patently ridiculous ?
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 08:49 am, Anthere wrote:
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 03:09 pm, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
There is a legitimate question about how much human nudity should be shown in Wikipedia.
In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it legitimate because I don't consider nudity offensive. (I have previously given the example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at their own unclothed body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous.
Patently ridiculous ? An opinion is patently ridiculous ?
Yes, that is correct. I consider the position that it is harmful to children to look at their nude body to be ridiculous. If you want to make an assertion that something is true, you must offer some evidence that supports that claim. Do you have any such evidence? I should like to see it. I don't subscribe to the wishy-washy notion of not being able to give my opinion about that of another simply because it is their opinion. Which is what you seem to be implying.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 08:49 am, Anthere wrote:
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 03:09 pm, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
There is a legitimate question about how much human nudity should be shown in Wikipedia.
In your opinion this is a legitimate question. I don't consider it legitimate because I don't consider nudity offensive. (I have previously given the example that if puritans consider exposure to nudity a bad thing for children, they have to in the same vein consider a child looking at their own unclothed body as harmful. That position is patently ridiculous.
Patently ridiculous ? An opinion is patently ridiculous ?
Yes, that is correct. I consider the position that it is harmful to children to look at their nude body to be ridiculous. If you want to make an assertion that something is true, you must offer some evidence that supports that claim. Do you have any such evidence? I should like to see it. I don't subscribe to the wishy-washy notion of not being able to give my opinion about that of another simply because it is their opinion. Which is what you seem to be implying.
Best, Sascha Noyes
As long as you do not write such a thing in Wikipedia without good attribution of someone whose opinion is relevant, I have no problem with that opinion of yours :)
(you might have not understood I was not speaking of the opinion it was harmful or not harmful, but rather of the comment given about such a position)
Am I clear there, I dunno...
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 10:00 am, Anthere wrote:
Yes, that is correct. I consider the position that it is harmful to children to look at their nude body to be ridiculous. If you want to make an assertion that something is true, you must offer some evidence that supports that claim. Do you have any such evidence? I should like to see it. I don't subscribe to the wishy-washy notion of not being able to give my opinion about that of another simply because it is their opinion. Which is what you seem to be implying.
Best, Sascha Noyes
As long as you do not write such a thing in Wikipedia without good attribution of someone whose opinion is relevant, I have no problem with that opinion of yours :)
(you might have not understood I was not speaking of the opinion it was harmful or not harmful, but rather of the comment given about such a position)
Am I clear there, I dunno...
Attribution is always good. I don't have a problem with the opinions of others, if they are in any way founded on some evidence. What I do have a problems with is people pushing unfounded opinions on others. By unfounded I mean "making an assertion as to the truth of a proposition without giving any evidence to support this assertion." We are presently discussing potential policy on the mailing lists, not writing encyclopedia articles, so I don't see how your comment about writing my opinions on Wikipedia is relevant.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 10:00 am, Anthere wrote:
Yes, that is correct. I consider the position that it is harmful to children to look at their nude body to be ridiculous. If you want to make an assertion that something is true, you must offer some evidence that supports that claim. Do you have any such evidence? I should like to see it. I don't subscribe to the wishy-washy notion of not being able to give my opinion about that of another simply because it is their opinion. Which is what you seem to be implying.
Best, Sascha Noyes
As long as you do not write such a thing in Wikipedia without good attribution of someone whose opinion is relevant, I have no problem with that opinion of yours :)
(you might have not understood I was not speaking of the opinion it was harmful or not harmful, but rather of the comment given about such a position)
Am I clear there, I dunno...
Attribution is always good. I don't have a problem with the opinions of others, if they are in any way founded on some evidence. What I do have a problems with is people pushing unfounded opinions on others. By unfounded I mean "making an assertion as to the truth of a proposition without giving any evidence to support this assertion." We are presently discussing potential policy on the mailing lists, not writing encyclopedia articles, so I don't see how your comment about writing my opinions on Wikipedia is relevant.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Apology, I forgot we were not chit-chatting forum, but encyclopedia building :-).
Then if we are only currently talking about a policy case, to what were you refering when you said "I will freely admit that I did not hesitate to point out the stupidity of finding nudity offensive ;-)" ?
Ah, never mind, I had enough of genitalia stuff these days.
Sascha Noyes wrote:
Attribution is always good. I don't have a problem with the opinions of others, if they are in any way founded on some evidence. What I do have a problems with is people pushing unfounded opinions on others. By unfounded I mean "making an assertion as to the truth of a proposition without giving any evidence to support this assertion."
I agree that being able to trace the source of information is important. The problem is not just with "pushing" opinions; sometimes a simple innocuous statement is entered as though it were a fact. It is not about a contentious issue, nor is it about something that people are likely to concern themselves. Including such unfounded material can have a long term effect on the credibility of Wikipedia.
In [[Académie française]] there is the statement "a musician named Gourville, who named it the Académie française". Another established contributor and I both independently looked for some kind of substantiation for this statement; neither of us was successful. At the same time we did not find any information indicating that someone else was responsible for the name. This particular piece of data was contributed by an anonymous contributor on December 31, 2002. The last contribution of any sort by him was on April 12, 2003. He may still be with us, and with a real identity, but I can't know that.
What do I know about 17th century musicians. I found a contemporary Gourville who was in a position to exercise such influence, but no evidence to connect him with the issue. Fact-checking is a painstaking and tedious process, and tracing the type of thing that I used as an example could take hours, and may require material that is not on the internet. Wikipedia's credibility depends on it. Everybody knows to expect bias in a hotly disputed topic like Israeli/Palestinian relations, and is on alert for that bias. This is not so with obscure little details. A credibility test for Wikipedia might be to take a random selection of obscure details and attempt to verify them, or at least find some source. How well would we do?
Ec
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 04:58 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
In [[Académie française]] there is the statement "a musician named Gourville, who named it the Académie française". Another established contributor and I both independently looked for some kind of substantiation for this statement; neither of us was successful. At the same time we did not find any information indicating that someone else was responsible for the name. This particular piece of data was contributed by an anonymous contributor on December 31, 2002. The last contribution of any sort by him was on April 12, 2003. He may still be with us, and with a real identity, but I can't know that.
What do I know about 17th century musicians. I found a contemporary Gourville who was in a position to exercise such influence, but no evidence to connect him with the issue. Fact-checking is a painstaking and tedious process, and tracing the type of thing that I used as an example could take hours, and may require material that is not on the internet. Wikipedia's credibility depends on it. Everybody knows to expect bias in a hotly disputed topic like Israeli/Palestinian relations, and is on alert for that bias. This is not so with obscure little details. A credibility test for Wikipedia might be to take a random selection of obscure details and attempt to verify them, or at least find some source. How well would we do?
This is indeed a problem. I have begun, and plan to continue to in my edit box summaries to indicate the source of the information I add to an article (if that information is non-obvious). Which reminds me that it would be a good idea to _require_ users to fill in the edit summary box.
What worries me every time is when I see an anon change numbers in wikipedia without any edit summary. Eg. changing statistics on the population of spanish speakers in California from (hypothetical) 15% to 40%. It is often impossible to tell whether this is vandalism or a correction.
Best, Sascha Noyes
just visit a government statistics page and check.
--- Sascha Noyes sascha@pantropy.net wrote:
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 04:58 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
In [[Académie française]] there is the statement
"a musician named
Gourville, who named it the Académie française".
Another established
contributor and I both independently looked for
some kind of
substantiation for this statement; neither of us
was successful. At the
same time we did not find any information
indicating that someone else
was responsible for the name. This particular
piece of data was
contributed by an anonymous contributor on
December 31, 2002. The last
contribution of any sort by him was on April 12,
- He may still be
with us, and with a real identity, but I can't
know that.
What do I know about 17th century musicians. I
found a contemporary
Gourville who was in a position to exercise such
influence, but no
evidence to connect him with the issue.
Fact-checking is a painstaking
and tedious process, and tracing the type of thing
that I used as an
example could take hours, and may require material
that is not on the
internet. Wikipedia's credibility depends on it.
Everybody knows to
expect bias in a hotly disputed topic like
Israeli/Palestinian
relations, and is on alert for that bias. This is
not so with obscure
little details. A credibility test for Wikipedia
might be to take a
random selection of obscure details and attempt to
verify them, or at
least find some source. How well would we do?
This is indeed a problem. I have begun, and plan to continue to in my edit box summaries to indicate the source of the information I add to an article (if that information is non-obvious). Which reminds me that it would be a good idea to _require_ users to fill in the edit summary box.
What worries me every time is when I see an anon change numbers in wikipedia without any edit summary. Eg. changing statistics on the population of spanish speakers in California from (hypothetical) 15% to 40%. It is often impossible to tell whether this is vandalism or a correction.
Best, Sascha Noyes -- Please encrypt all email. Public key available from www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
The US locality articles were created by RamBot from the official statistics from the US Census Bureau, so the ones that are there SHOULD be the correct ones.
RickK
Nikos-Optim optim81@yahoo.co.uk wrote: just visit a government statistics page and check.
--- Sascha Noyes wrote:
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 04:58 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
In [[Académie française]] there is the statement
"a musician named
Gourville, who named it the Académie française".
Another established
contributor and I both independently looked for
some kind of
substantiation for this statement; neither of us
was successful. At the
same time we did not find any information
indicating that someone else
was responsible for the name. This particular
piece of data was
contributed by an anonymous contributor on
December 31, 2002. The last
contribution of any sort by him was on April 12,
- He may still be
with us, and with a real identity, but I can't
know that.
What do I know about 17th century musicians. I
found a contemporary
Gourville who was in a position to exercise such
influence, but no
evidence to connect him with the issue.
Fact-checking is a painstaking
and tedious process, and tracing the type of thing
that I used as an
example could take hours, and may require material
that is not on the
internet. Wikipedia's credibility depends on it.
Everybody knows to
expect bias in a hotly disputed topic like
Israeli/Palestinian
relations, and is on alert for that bias. This is
not so with obscure
little details. A credibility test for Wikipedia
might be to take a
random selection of obscure details and attempt to
verify them, or at
least find some source. How well would we do?
This is indeed a problem. I have begun, and plan to continue to in my edit box summaries to indicate the source of the information I add to an article (if that information is non-obvious). Which reminds me that it would be a good idea to _require_ users to fill in the edit summary box.
What worries me every time is when I see an anon change numbers in wikipedia without any edit summary. Eg. changing statistics on the population of spanish speakers in California from (hypothetical) 15% to 40%. It is often impossible to tell whether this is vandalism or a correction.
Best, Sascha Noyes -- Please encrypt all email. Public key available from www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
The point is not about any one example in particular. Sascha's example would be a relatively easy one to check, but who would think to check it if he had not used it as an example. There are countless such unnoticed details in the 'pedia. Ec
Nikos-Optim wrote:
just visit a government statistics page and check.
--- Sascha Noyes sascha@pantropy.net wrote:
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 04:58 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
In [[Académie française]] there is the statement
"a musician named
Gourville, who named it the Académie française".
Another established
contributor and I both independently looked for
some kind of
substantiation for this statement; neither of us
was successful. At the
same time we did not find any information
indicating that someone else
was responsible for the name. This particular
piece of data was
contributed by an anonymous contributor on
December 31, 2002. The last
contribution of any sort by him was on April 12,
- He may still be
with us, and with a real identity, but I can't
know that.
What do I know about 17th century musicians. I
found a contemporary
Gourville who was in a position to exercise such
influence, but no
evidence to connect him with the issue.
Fact-checking is a painstaking
and tedious process, and tracing the type of thing
that I used as an
example could take hours, and may require material
that is not on the
internet. Wikipedia's credibility depends on it.
Everybody knows to
expect bias in a hotly disputed topic like
Israeli/Palestinian
relations, and is on alert for that bias. This is
not so with obscure
little details. A credibility test for Wikipedia
might be to take a
random selection of obscure details and attempt to
verify them, or at
least find some source. How well would we do?
This is indeed a problem. I have begun, and plan to continue to in my edit box summaries to indicate the source of the information I add to an article (if that information is non-obvious). Which reminds me that it would be a good idea to _require_ users to fill in the edit summary box.
What worries me every time is when I see an anon change numbers in wikipedia without any edit summary. Eg. changing statistics on the population of spanish speakers in California from (hypothetical) 15% to 40%. It is often impossible to tell whether this is vandalism or a correction.
Best, Sascha Noyes
As is well known, I'm somewhat conservative about what I think we ought to show in Wikipedia. The bounds of good taste are very important.
Having said that, I think that the current article and diagram/photo are not problematic. This is very different from the 'clitoris' picture (don't know the current status on that one), which looked "like porn" to me -- in poor taste.
The diagrams and photo in this case are very "textbook" looking.
As to whether this sort of thing should go into a version of Wikipedia intended for distribution to schools is perhaps a different matter, and one that we will have to address specifically at some point in the future.
--Jimbo