Erik writes:
However, I think we should be very careful with such taboos, and only apply them when there is almost universal agreement to do so. In other words, when there's *near* unanimous consensus not to have images, then we can do without them.
So far, so good. I agree.
This is not the case for genitalia -- I think pictures of genitalia are only offensive to a relatively small segment of the population
I disagree. A very large number of Americans will refuse to use Wikipedia if it contains color photographs of penises, vaginas, anal sphincters, etc. If we do not have at least some level of protection, then we will become one of America's most-blocked site on home and school Internet filters.
(On the other hand, such blocking might occur because we have NPOV discussions of God and religion, which is a threat to many Americans as well...)
Perhaps main articles should have no such images, but can contain a link to a related article with such photos. That way even if pages are blocked due to certain images, the main articles would still be available to be read in most homes and schools.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Robert-
I disagree. A very large number of Americans will refuse to use Wikipedia if it contains color photographs of penises, vaginas, anal sphincters, etc. If we do not have at least some level of protection, then we will become one of America's most-blocked site on home and school Internet filters.
We've gone through this before. My point of view is that we have no obligation to pander to filters - we have an obligation to be an encyclopedia. Being overly offensive hurts our usefulness as an encyclopedia, but being in the filters is not an indication for being overly offensive. A lot of stuff is put in filters that is not offensive by any reasonable standard.
Perhaps main articles should have no such images, but can contain a link to a related article with such photos.
I find this to be an implicit endorsement of the shamefulness/sinfulness POV that has some prominence in American culture. NPOV should be paramount except for cases of near-universal offensiveness.
We should probably formulate a policy on this. On Talk:Clitoris there was a near consensus for including either a photo or a drawing, and a slim majority for a photo (although no suitable free illustration has been found yet). I do not see a fundamental difference between clitoris and penis in this regard. So it appears that the vast majority of Wikipedians favors liberal standards of inclusion rather than conservative ones.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
I find this to be an implicit endorsement of the shamefulness/sinfulness POV that has some prominence in American culture. NPOV should be paramount except for cases of near-universal offensiveness.
I don't see that as being the case. I see nothing shameful or sinful about penises or clitorises or other such organs, but neither do I want to see them unless I've gone out of my way to do so. The same way I have no problem with people having sex, but I don't generally want them to be doing it on the street.
So I'd disagree, and propose more conservative standards: anything that a large portion of the population would be bothered by seeing should be put in a link. This detracts very little, as clicking a link is a very easy thing to do, but gives people the option not to click it.
-Mark
On Saturday 10 January 2004 10:05 am, Robert wrote:
This is not the case for genitalia -- I think pictures of genitalia are only offensive to a relatively small segment of the population
I disagree. A very large number of Americans will refuse to use Wikipedia if it contains color photographs of penises, vaginas, anal sphincters, etc. If we do not have at least some level of protection, then we will become one of America's most-blocked site on home and school Internet filters.
We should not stoop to the level of the American puritans. Pictures of human anatomy are patently unoffensive - or are these same puritans offended by themselves when they go for a shower? And even if they are irrationally offended, what the censors do not understand is that they do not have a right to not be offended.
I agree that there is an argument to be made for having as broad an acceptance as possible, but we should not accept the lowest common denominator of offensiveness. Some religious people are offended by pictoral representations of deities, which does not mean wikipedia should go out of its way to not display pictures of deities. Personally, I would be inclined to tell those people to 'sod off', and get their "sanitised" version of reality elsewhere. Recognising that this is unlikely to be adopted as the policy of wikipedia (unfortunately), I agree with Erik that we should try to limit ourselves to things that are almost universally considered offensive.
Best, Sascha Noyes