Autofellatio - NO to that image - WikiEN-l

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

Autofellatio - NO to that image

older

Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 19, Issue...

Re: The Censorship Lie

Arno M

12 Feb 2005 12 Feb '05

10:30 p.m.

I'd like to put my reply to sannse's e-mail here. That autofellatio image should go - and go immediately. People have the right to go through this wikipedia without being confronted with this kind of pornographic material without warning. It's like you going down a street and having some idiot expose himself to you without warning. Would you like that? How about your kids? Would you like them to see this kind of thing without warning or supervision? I see nothing here inconsistent with freedom of expression. This kind of exhibitionist behaviour is anarchy, NOT freedom. Oh, and for the record and at the risk of raising the hackles of certain wikipedians, I also remain very opposed to links to pornographic sites within wikipedia. Autofellatio also has this, as do certain other pages. This tells minors where to go looking for such material and again, that's not on. This is NOT a pornography website referral centre. -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…

Show replies by date

blankfaze

12 Feb 12 Feb

11:07 p.m.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:30:00 +0600, Arno M <redgum46(a)lycos.com> wrote:

...

Sir, this was by far the dumbest opinion I've heard in a while. Reminded me why I have such little faith in humanity. For the millionth time: WE ARE AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA WE PRESENT INFORMATION (an image of autofellatio is, no matter what any idiot argues, information) WE DO NOT CENSOR INFORMATION -- ! blankfaze *the good times are killing me*

Erik Moeller

13 Feb 13 Feb

12:16 a.m.

Hello Blankfaze,

...

WE PRESENT INFORMATION (an image of autofellatio is, no matter what any idiot argues, information) WE DO NOT CENSOR INFORMATION

while I happen to agree with your opinion, I would note that reasonable people can disagree about this. Certainly some images will offend a great many people, while others will only offend few. Now, I would argue that it is wrong and POV for us to remove them -- and if we did that using this standard, we would have to remove many political images on the same grounds. But, I don't think it's wrong for us to provide people with meaningful labels and allow them not to see certain images. This could be done right now using stylesheets by putting the whole image in a <div id="male-sexual-act"> tag. Users could then hide such images by associating the ID with the attribute "display:none;" in their stylesheet. No POV on our part - just someone deciding on their own what they don't want to see. We could have <div id="violence-against-animals">, <div id="crucifixion"> etc., as well. In spite of Christianity being a widespread delusion, some people from different cultures might be offended by explicit religious imagery featuring a half-naked man nailed to a cross and covered in blood. Again, we could give them the choice to hide such imagery. It's a bit like image copyright tagging. If we start doing this now, we can work on improving the tools to filter in the future. Regards, Erik

Daniel Mayer

2:04 a.m.

--- blankfaze <blankfaze(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:30:00 +0600, Arno M <redgum46(a)lycos.com> wrote: Sir, this was by far the dumbest opinion I've heard in a while.

That is unreasonably rude.

...

Reminded me why I have such little faith in humanity.

That would explain the rudeness.

...

For the millionth time: WE ARE AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA WE PRESENT INFORMATION (an image of autofellatio is, no matter what any idiot argues, information) WE DO NOT CENSOR INFORMATION

For the first and last time: We are a general encyclopedia with a general readership. If the informative value of any piece of info or image is outweighed by its shock or arousal qualities, then a very valid editorial decision is to remove that peice of info or image. And since our audience is a general one, we have to consider the fact that many people may want to read about this topic (or Goatse.cz for that matter) without having to see an image of it. For the great majority of things this distinction is meaningless (and we need not pander to a puritanical minority who may have a taboo against showing women's feet or whatever), but for issues where the outside world makes a clear distinction, such as sexual acts, we can make some reasonable guidelines. Less controversial things, such as clinical photos of naked people's bits and pieces or famous works of art that depict nakedness, can and should be displayed inline in an article *where* appropriate and tasteful. The reason; their informative aspects outweigh any shock or arousal value. These are are fairly subjective things that reasonable people can disagree on. But some common sense and a good long look at our audience and their needs (not what we think should be forced on them for their own good) will help guide us. I also imagine that different Wikipedia language versions will come up with whatever policies best fit them. -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Erik Moeller

2:22 a.m.

Daniel-

...

I also imagine that different Wikipedia language versions will come up with whatever policies best fit them.

That would mean giving up on the idea that there is a neutral point of view, and instead succumbing to local cultural biases. In the case of the English Wikipedia in particular, this would be highly regrettable, as it is used as a source in many different cultures with strongly varying values, but the majority of editors (and hence voters in such decision processes) are probably American and British. The other argument against this practice is that it might reinforce and spread values which are harmful. It is not our mission to establish standards of normality in either direction. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying offensiveness should not be taken into account at all. The "default view" of Wikipedia could hide certain images which are considered offensive by the vast majority of editors. But our real goal should be to make the decision what is displayed an individual one, rather than a community choice that is imposed on the reader. We could also, on the request of schools and libraries, associate certain IP addresses with certain filter settings. Ideally, this would just be a switch in stylesheets and not affect the caching of the article pages. Regards, Erik

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

3:26 a.m.

Erik Moeller wrote:

...

>I also imagine that different Wikipedia language versions will come up with >whatever policies best fit them.

...

That would mean giving up on the idea that there is a neutral point of view, and instead succumbing to local cultural biases.

It is not clear to me that NPOV could ever require a _single_ version of all policies and all articles. Certainly the concept does push in the direction of a general sort of consistency, but not every kind of difference is "succumbing to local cultural biases". For example, we don't insist that the German wikipedia be written in English, so as to avoid the local cultural bias of "speaking in German". Or, imagine that a particular battle in Europe during World War II had some unusual but local impact on Japan. We might quite naturally imagine that the Japanese article _without bias_ but _with an eye towards the needs and interests of the local audience_ would have a different degree of detail on that topic than say en or fr or de. Similarly, there can be different sorts of lines drawn as to when we put an image where you have no choice but to look at it in order to learn about a topic form us, versus place it on a separate page where you can learn about it if you like. This is not censorship, and it need not be any more biased than writing in a local language or focussing on different details of local interest in general articles. Neutrality is perfectly consistent with respecting the preferences and needs of the audience in a great many cases. (It isn't necessary to retreat into subjectivism, either, in order to affirmatively respect the values and needs of the reader.) --- Separately, I don't think the argument that "Those who want to hide these images don't trust the audience to be able to handle it" is very compelling, because the opposite argument could be made just as well. "Those who want to force the audience to see the image don't trust them to make up their own minds about what to read."

...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying offensiveness should not be taken into account at all. The "default view" of Wikipedia could hide certain images which are considered offensive by the vast majority of editors. But our real goal should be to make the decision what is displayed an individual one, rather than a community choice that is imposed on the reader. We could also, on the request of schools and libraries, associate certain IP addresses with certain filter settings. Ideally, this would just be a switch in stylesheets and not affect the caching of the article pages.

Indeed, this would a good thing. In the past when content ratings were suggested, there was a firestorm of criticism as I recall. But "would be a good thing" doesn't help us much with where we stand today, I am afraid. It's a difficult issue. --Jimbo

Christiaan Briggs

9:50 a.m.

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

...

Separately, I don't think the argument that "Those who want to hide these images don't trust the audience to be able to handle it" is very compelling, because the opposite argument could be made just as well. "Those who want to force the audience to see the image don't trust them to make up their own minds about what to read."

True, but, putting people's rhetoric aside, this is essentially what the argument boils down to. To treat such pictures differently is a cultural statement in itself about that picture. This debate is not so much about what constitutes an appropriate image but which cultural point of view will prevail on Wikipedia. It's one of those issues where there is no NPOV. To hide or remove such an image is a statement. To keep such an image inline or linked is a statement. Christiaan

Delirium

12:56 p.m.

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

...

I used to have this viewpoint on NPOV and languages, but increasingly I'm not sure it makes sense. The fundamental reason we have separate languages for the encyclopedias is simply that there is no one language that all people can easily read, so it's a necessity. The German Wikipedia can't be in English or vice versa because many Germans can't read English and many Americans, Britons, and other English-speakers can't read German. Now these languages do correspond somewhat to cultures, but not always very well---in some cases, like English, pretty poorly (especially if you count people who speak English as a second language, it's hard to identify an "English-speaking culture"). So, if we really wanted encyclopedias whose focuses were geared towards local culture, we would actually need to split some languages into multiple encyclopedias---a U.S.-english and a European-english encyclopedial; Americas-spanish and Spain-spanish; France-french, Canada-french, and Africa-french; and so on. Otherwise, which countries get version with content geared towards local tastes and interests and which don't is based on historical accident---Italy gets a local version, because nobody else really speaks Italian, but the U.K. has to share its encyclopedia, because a lot of other people speak English. I think, instead, we ought to treat languages as sort of a necessary evil, and strive to make them all as internationalist and *non*-local as possible. Japanese may not be spoken as widely as English, so will inherently tend towards more local biases and focus. That, IMO, simply means that the ja: Wikipedia needs to make more of a special effort to actively seek out other viewpoints, whereas the en: Wikipedia has a bit of an easier time because the other viewpoints come to it on their own. I personally prefer as internationalist an encyclopedia as possible, and for that reason consider myself somewhat lucky that my main language is English---I think the en: Wikipedia would be much, much less interesting and informative if US-english had diverged enough to be considered its own language, and therefore there was a us: encyclopedia edited only by Americans. Not that a us: encyclopedia couldn't be useful or interesting, but I much prefer the current en: encyclopedia, even if it's often not geared towards my local culture. (If nothing else, when I'm surprised at the order of information, or the caveats and so on, it reminds me that a lot of things I take for granted aren't universal.) Now whether it's possible to synthesize a NPOV encyclopedia that covers the entire world without any particular bias, and what that would mean, is an interesting issue the sociologists and philosophers will no doubt have volumes to say about. =] -Mark

Lothar Kimmeringer

5:16 p.m.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:56:15 -0500, Delirium wrote:

...

So, if we really wanted encyclopedias whose focuses were geared towards local culture, we would actually need to split some languages into multiple encyclopedias

Some? More or less all, except the klingon and esperanto wikipedia.

...

Italy gets a local version, because nobody else really speaks Italian,

The language doesn't qualify for the culture. The cultural differences between the north and the south of Italy are quite big. In Germany even within one state like Bavaria you have different cultures like Franken and Oberbayern (not to mention the people living in the Bayerischer Wald). Regards, Lothar -- Lothar Kimmeringer E-Mail: spamfang(a)kimmeringer.de PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81) Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong questions!

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

12:12 a.m.

Arno M wrote:

...

That autofellatio image should go - and go immediately.

Indeed. The primary reason I'm not deleting it outright is that I trust the community to make the right decision here. But the right decision is clear, and I don't consider this even remotely close to a borderline case. The real issue here is *not* about prudishness, nor about censorship. I am neither a prude nor a censor. The real issue here is about *editorial quality*. The picture is just awful, aesthetically awful, with far more "shock value" than educational value (of which it has close to zero). Furthermore, since it is almost certainly a copyright violation, it needs to go away on those grounds alone. (Before anyone says "fair use" remember that I insist that we only use fair use images in some fairly limited circumstances. This case clear does not rise to that level.) --Jimbo

Christiaan Briggs

9:29 a.m.

Arno M wrote:

...

This kind of exhibitionist behaviour is anarchy, NOT freedom.

uh, with anarchy being the highest form of freedom I'd be interested to know what you really mean by this comment. Christiaan

Chad Perrin

2:54 p.m.

Christiaan Briggs wrote:

...

Arno M wrote:

This kind of exhibitionist behaviour is anarchy, NOT freedom.

uh, with anarchy being the highest form of freedom I'd be interested to know what you really mean by this comment.

to be more clear: Using "anarchy" as a pejorative term betrays a great deal of bias, or at least ignorance of how the term is often used in reasonable discussion of various political philosophies. I hope you (Arno M) don't use the term "anarchy" to mean "bad chaos" when writing or editing Wikipedia articles, whether or not you personally view anarchism as a valid and valuable political philosophy. Perhaps what was meant by that statement could be better phrased using different terms. -- Chad

Delirium

3:11 p.m.

Chad Perrin wrote:

...

Well, this is getting a bit off topic, but anarchy *does* also mean "bad chaos" in the English language. The word has many meanings, only one of which is the political philosophy. To quote the OED's first definition: 1. a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder). You seem to be talking of 1.b., but "anarchy" can also refer to simple lawlessness, as in Somalia, or chaotic celebrations following a sports victory. -Mark

Chad Perrin

3:25 p.m.

Delirium wrote:

...

Chad Perrin wrote:

Upon reading the quoted definitions, I find that even 1.a. isn't specifically pejorative, while the comment I quoted is. An absence of government, a state of lawlessness due to absence of "supreme power", a state of lawlessness due to inefficiency of "supreme power", and political disorder are (attempted, at least) objective statements of condition and circumstance. They are not renderings of judgment. Using the term "anarchy" to describe "chaos that is Bad", on the other hand, is very much a rendering of judgment, not only of that to which the term anarchy is being applied but to the term itself. Somalia, by the way, is not "simple lawlessness". Somalia suffers within a very, very awful situation that happens to include a rather complex lawlessness. -- Chad

Christiaan Briggs

4:57 p.m.

Delirium wrote:

...

To quote the OED's first definition: 1. a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder).

Well apart from it not simply being a theoretical social state (it has existed to some degree throughout human history), the use of the word to describe anything other than a lack of authority is usually not a good use of the word as there are usually more precise words to use. The problem with these multiple meanings that have been attached to the word anarchy is that they usually contradict each other. 1b, for instance, clearly contradicts 1a above. One purports disorder while the other implies the opposite. It's not surprising that the etymology of anarchy is controversial. A lot of powerful people have much to lose were anarchy to be adopted on mass. It works in their favour for the word anarchy to be a pejorative term.

...

You seem to be talking of 1.b., but "anarchy" can also refer to simple lawlessness, as in Somalia, or chaotic celebrations following a sports victory.

Somalia might be better described as anomy and chaotic celebrations following a sports victory might be better described as, well, chaotic. Christiaan

Skyring

4:04 p.m.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:30:00 +0600, Arno M <redgum46(a)lycos.com> wrote:

...

"Going down a street". Hmmm. Very Freudian wording there. May I suggest that if you are coming along Autofellatio Street then you may expect to have such images in your face. But I doubt that too many Wikipedia users hunt up that particular article. It's not like browsing through ''World Book'' where you look up [[Automobile]] and come across [[Autofellatio]] on the facing page. If you want Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to find. -- Peter in Canberra

Tony Sidaway

5 p.m.

Skyring said:

...

If you want Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to find.

At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver and article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.

Skyring

5:35 p.m.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:

...

Skyring said:

If you want Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to find.

At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver an article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.

Yeah, well I thought of that, but it's not a likely outcome. You'd have to stroke the button long and rapidly before you came across an objectionable image. And it's not something that can easily be reproduced. Reverend Hardmind might claim that he pressed random and up popped a beaver, but his parishioners are going to find that they press the same button and get [[Flannel]]. -- Peter in Canberra

Nicholas Knight

5:42 p.m.

Skyring wrote:

...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:

Skyring said:

If you want Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to find.

At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver an article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.

Yeah, well I thought of that, but it's not a likely outcome. You'd have to stroke the button long and rapidly before you came across an objectionable image. And it's not something that can easily be

The nature of random numbers means such a claim is patently ridiculous. You cannot predict how many clicks it could take. It could take 1 or 1,000,000. Or even an infinite number.

...

reproduced. Reverend Hardmind might claim that he pressed random and up popped a beaver, but his parishioners are going to find that they press the same button and get [[Flannel]].

Except you can't predict that. Every person that hits that link from now to judgement day could land on [[Random number generator]]. This is the nature of randomness.

Tony Sidaway

5:47 p.m.

I would say that if a user presses the random page button and gets a page he didn't expect, then the button is probably working as advertised. We should perhaps put a reminder to read our content disclaimer just under the button.

Chad Perrin

6:42 p.m.

Tony Sidaway wrote:

...

That strikes me as an eminently reasonable way to handle it, if there's real concern over possible offense. If not (if, for instance, it was only brought up as a hypothetical complaint and nobody really cares), there may not be any need to even do that much. The existence of a randomization button doesn't strike me as a reason to ban certain classes of articles or restrict legitimately informative content in those articles, though. That doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons to restrict such articles or their contents, but I don't think the random button qualifies as one of these. -- Chad

Skyring

5:53 p.m.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:42:24 -0800, Nicholas Knight <nknight(a)runawaynet.com> wrote:

...

Skyring wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:

Skyring said:

If you want Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to find.

At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver an article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.

Yeah, well I thought of that, but it's not a likely outcome. You'd have to stroke the button long and rapidly before you came across an objectionable image. And it's not something that can easily be

The nature of random numbers means such a claim is patently ridiculous. You cannot predict how many clicks it could take. It could take 1 or 1,000,000. Or even an infinite number.

reproduced. Reverend Hardmind might claim that he pressed random and up popped a beaver, but his parishioners are going to find that they press the same button and get [[Flannel]].

Except you can't predict that.

I can and do. I predict that people pressing the [Random Article] button are NOT going to get [Autofellatio].

...

Every person that hits that link from now to judgement day could land on [[Random number generator]]. This is the nature of randomness.

I accept the nit-picking points you are making. -- Peter in Canberra

Robin Shannon

10:50 p.m.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:42:24 -0800, Nicholas Knight <nknight(a)runawaynet.com> wrote:

...

This is the nature of randomness.

Except, that the random page button is not actually random... -- hit me: robin.shannon.id.au jab me: saudade(a)jabber.zim.net.au This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

Tony Sidaway

11:17 p.m.

Robin Shannon said:

...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:42:24 -0800, Nicholas Knight <nknight(a)runawaynet.com> wrote:

This is the nature of randomness.

Except, that the random page button is not actually random...

find . -name '*Rand*' grep -i rand includes/SpecialRandompage.php find . -name '*.php' -exec grep -il cur_rand {} /dev/null \; lynx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister Random enough. :)

Robin Shannon

11:45 p.m.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:17:22 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:

...

find . -name '*Rand*' grep -i rand includes/SpecialRandompage.php find . -name '*.php' -exec grep -il cur_rand {} /dev/null \; lynx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister Random enough. :)

nope :P when we can afford some kind of quantom machine to come up with genuine randomness, then it will be random enough for me. -- hit me: robin.shannon.id.au jab me: saudade(a)jabber.zim.net.au This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

Lothar Kimmeringer

5:45 p.m.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:00:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway wrote:

...

Skyring said:

If you want Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to find.

At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver and article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.

So the logical solution is the deactivation of the Random-button or bring up an explicit warning that has to be confirmed on before switching over to the random page. There are enough pages that might be offensive in one way or the other, so you can't reduce it to the pages covering sexuality. Regards, Lothar -- Lothar Kimmeringer E-Mail: spamfang(a)kimmeringer.de PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81) Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong questions!

Tony Sidaway

5:51 p.m.

Lothar Kimmeringer said:

...

Yep. Some Wikipedia pages need a link that says "Click here to see potentially offensive pictures of horrible hairy caterpillars." Just for my benefit.

Lothar Kimmeringer

5:38 p.m.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:30:00 +0600, Arno M wrote:

...

I wonder how somebody might be shocked to see a picture like that after looking for [[Autofellatio]] explicitly. Especially I wonder how you can't be warned if you specifically look for this kind of word in an encyclopaedia. In difference to a printed encyclopaedia you have to go to that page actively instead of see it when just look from one page to the other. Why don't you ask for the removal of the pictures on [[Penis]], there you even can see monstrosities like the penis of an elephant? Or [[vagina]], or [[breast]], or [[Autocunnilingus]], or [[Anal masturbation]]

...

It's like you going down a street and having some idiot expose himself to you without warning.

Wikipedia never exposed itself to me. I always had to enter an URL into the browser or click onto a link.

...

Would you like that?

Spywarelike behavior? No. But Wikipedia does not behave that way.

...

How about your kids?

What would happen with kids that see the picture on [[Autofellatio]]. The boys would try it out, the girls not.

...

Would you like them to see this kind of thing without warning or supervision?

Internet is not a place for children without supervision anyway, so what's your point?

...

I see nothing here inconsistent with freedom of expression. This kind of exhibitionist behaviour is anarchy, NOT freedom.

Anarchism: [...] These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary cooperation of free individuals. [...] Try to find out where I was getting this definition from ...

...

Oh, and for the record and at the risk of raising the hackles of certain wikipedians, I also remain very opposed to links to pornographic sites within wikipedia. Autofellatio also has this, as do certain other pages.

The first link in the article should be removed, that's true.

...

This tells minors where to go looking for such material and again, that's not on.

Sorry, but the minors already know the best sites already. They don't need Wikipedia for that. Regards, Lothar -- Lothar Kimmeringer E-Mail: spamfang(a)kimmeringer.de PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81) Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong questions!

csherlock＠ljh.com.au

7:21 p.m.

Arno M wrote:

...

Out of interest Arno, why are you looking at the Autofellatio article if you risk getting offended? TBSDY

David Gerard

8:18 p.m.

csherlock(a)ljh.com.au (csherlock(a)ljh.com.au) [050214 11:23]:

...

Arno M wrote:

...

>I'd like to put my reply to sannse's e-mail here. >That autofellatio image should go - and go immediately. >People have the right to go through this wikipedia without being confronted >with this kind of pornographic material without warning.

...

Out of interest Arno, why are you looking at the Autofellatio article if you risk getting offended?

I too would like to know the answer to this question. (It's like people who complain the picture on [[clitoris]] is not worksafe and can't come up with why they were reading about clitorises in the course of their job.) nb: the photo on [[autofellatio]] is indeed awful. - d.

Nicholas Knight

8:27 p.m.

David Gerard wrote:

...

csherlock(a)ljh.com.au (csherlock(a)ljh.com.au) [050214 11:23]:

Arno M wrote:

Out of interest Arno, why are you looking at the Autofellatio article if you risk getting offended?

I too would like to know the answer to this question.

A textual description and even line drawing of a disgusting act do not have the offensive and shock value that a photograph does.

sannse

14 Feb 14 Feb

6:28 a.m.

David Gerard wrote:

...

csherlock(a)ljh.com.au (csherlock(a)ljh.com.au) [050214 11:23]:

...

Out of interest Arno, why are you looking at the Autofellatio article if you risk getting offended?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to read about a sexual or otherwise explicit subject without seeing explicit images of it. I am quite interested to know what exactly autofellatio is, if it really is possible and what proportion of the population are able - but I'm really not interested in seeing an image of it. And if I am, I'll turn of safe-search on google and search for images there. The argument that I can turn off images on my browser seems a bad one to me - for a start, many people don't know how to do this (never underestimate the non-techyness of the general user). It's also inconvenient to have to switch images on and off for different pages (especially as I use tabs). And for the general reader, why would they /expect/ to have to turn images off when reading a general encyclopaedia? --sannse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/05

Rebecca

16 Feb 16 Feb

12:45 p.m.

...

Thank you, sannse. Really, I think we could do with some intervention from Jimbo on this issue. I'm a rabid leftie, and one reason I chose to study law was because I detest censorship. Yet, at the same time, I utterly refuse to have to put vile censorship software on my own computer to avoid seeing inline what shouldn't be there in the first place. I could really care less about some of the more minor ones, such as [[Clitoris]], but I'm on record as saying that the day [[Goatse]] and similar articles receive according pictures is the day that I leave Wikipedia and demand that every trace of my involvement on this site be removed. I love this site, but I would no longer want to be personally associated with such a place. -- ambi

Christopher Mahan

12:58 p.m.

--- Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to read about a sexual

otherwise explicit subject without seeing explicit images of it.

I am

quite interested to know what exactly autofellatio is, if it

really is

possible and what proportion of the population are able - but I'm

really

not interested in seeing an image of it. And if I am, I'll turn

safe-search on google and search for images there. The argument that I can turn off images on my browser seems a bad

one to

me - for a start, many people don't know how to do this (never underestimate the non-techyness of the general user). It's also inconvenient to have to switch images on and off for different

pages

(especially as I use tabs). And for the general reader, why

would they

/expect/ to have to turn images off when reading a general

encyclopaedia?

--sannse

Calm down ambi. You of all people should not get upset about all this, since this is your field of professional study. Besides you home page, you may not demand that all traces of your involvment be removed. You willfully released your contributions in the GNU Free Documentation License. It's out of your hands. You should have thought about that before contributing. (It's at the bottom of every edit page, and you are a law student after all). Stomping you foot may work in a bar with cute guys. Most of use are neither cute or in a bar. ===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com chris.mahan(a)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

sannse

1:06 p.m.

Christopher Mahan wrote:

...

Stomping you foot may work in a bar with cute guys. Most of use are neither cute or in a bar.

If you have to resort to pathetic, sexist put-downs, to respond to valid concerns... then you really are loosing the argument - and all of my respect. --sannse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/05

Christopher Mahan

1:12 p.m.

--- sannse <sannse(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

...

Christopher Mahan wrote:

Stomping you foot may work in a bar with cute guys. Most of use

are

neither cute or in a bar.

If you have to resort to pathetic, sexist put-downs, to respond to valid concerns... then you really are loosing the argument - and all of my respect.

You're right, and I apologise. ===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com chris.mahan(a)gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com

MPerel

1:18 p.m.

<chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Stomping you foot may work in a bar with cute guys. Most of use are neither cute or in a bar.

Oh please! What a demeaning, dismissive, sexist statement! Miri

Karl A. Krueger

1:33 p.m.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 09:58:33AM -0800, Christopher Mahan wrote:

...

Stomping you foot may work in a bar with cute guys. Most of use are neither cute or in a bar.

Snide, sexist comments may work in a bar with incompetent guys. Most of us are neither incompetent, nor in a bar. -- Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>

Anthere

3:35 p.m.

given the number of comments to this sentence Chris, I frankly regret not to understand what you meant :-) Could you enlight me offline ? Ant Karl A. Krueger a écrit:

...

On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 09:58:33AM -0800, Christopher Mahan wrote:

Stomping you foot may work in a bar with cute guys. Most of use are neither cute or in a bar.

Snide, sexist comments may work in a bar with incompetent guys. Most of us are neither incompetent, nor in a bar.

Tony Sidaway

3:40 p.m.

Christopher Mahan said:

...

Stomping you foot may work in a bar with cute guys. Most of use are neither cute or in a bar.

I believe that list etiquette requires that we at least try to impersonate cute guys. I would like to politely say to Christopher that I think personalizing stuff like that goes too far. Ambi has her say and I respect her view and I hope we all take heed. We'd lose a great contributor if she left.

Skyring

1:04 p.m.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:45:23 +1100, Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Really, I think we could do with some intervention from Jimbo on this issue. I'm a rabid leftie, and one reason I chose to study law was because I detest censorship. Yet, at the same time, I utterly refuse to have to put vile censorship software on my own computer to avoid seeing inline what shouldn't be there in the first place. I could really care less about some of the more minor ones, such as [[Clitoris]], but I'm on record as saying that the day [[Goatse]] and similar articles receive according pictures is the day that I leave Wikipedia and demand that every trace of my involvement on this site be removed. I love this site, but I would no longer want to be personally associated with such a place.

Hear, hear! Wikipedia with gratuitous images aimed at shock or titillation isn't an encyclopaedia - it's something else. To my mind, [[Clitoris]], [[Penis]] and so on are valid cases for a photograph of the bits in question on an educational basis. Any more than one (or perhaps two for [[Penis]]) is just making a meal of it. [[Goatse]] doesn't need an article on its own, but perhaps belongs in an article about some aspect of the Web, presumably with a link. [[Autofellatio]] should be one line and no image in the [[Masturbation]] article. If there is such a thing. Just how far do we take open source and liberty? Are we going to have [[Child Pornography]] complete with pictures and links, just because someone thinks we should? -- Peter in Canberra

geni

1:11 p.m.

...

Just how far do we take open source and liberty? Are we going to have [[Child Pornography]] complete with pictures and links, just because someone thinks we should?

Can't have pictures since that goes against the law in the state of florida. -- geni

Tony Sidaway

3:55 p.m.

New subject: Child porn and wikipedia (was Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image)

geni said:

...

Just how far do we take open source and liberty? Are we going to have [[Child Pornography]] complete with pictures and links, just because someone thinks we should?

Can't have pictures since that goes against the law in the state of florida.

Someone informed me that the law of Florida doesn't allow us to get rid of the bit of child porn at [[Lolicon]]. Perhaps we should get a second opinion from the Foundation's lawyers. I would be happy to see that trash off the website; at least the autofellatio guy is a grown-up doing it for fun.

geni

4:08 p.m.

New subject: Child porn and wikipedia (was Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image)

...

US law allows simulated child porn at present (ie drawings, cgi, young looking models etc). -- geni

Tony Sidaway

5:16 p.m.

New subject: Child porn and wikipedia (was Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image)

geni said:

...

US law allows simulated child porn at present (ie drawings, cgi, young looking models etc).

Well I won't make a big deal of it, but I do think it's absolutely vile.

Tony Sidaway

5:16 p.m.

New subject: Child porn and wikipedia (was Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image)

geni said:

...

US law allows simulated child porn at present (ie drawings, cgi, young looking models etc).

Well I won't make a big deal of it, but I do think it's absolutely vile.

Nicholas Knight

7:54 p.m.

New subject: Child porn and wikipedia (was Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image)

Tony Sidaway wrote:

...

geni said:

US law allows simulated child porn at present (ie drawings, cgi, young looking models etc).

Well I won't make a big deal of it, but I do think it's absolutely vile.

And why is your evaluation of the image at Lolicon as "trash" and "vile" any more valid than my evaluation of the Autofellatio image as "crap"?

Tony Sidaway

8:14 p.m.

New subject: Child porn and wikipedia (was Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image)

Nicholas Knight said:

...

And why is your evaluation of the image at Lolicon as "trash" and "vile" any more valid than my evaluation of the Autofellatio image as "crap"?

It probably isn't. I think it's just a matter of taste.

Tony Sidaway

3:48 p.m.

Skyring said:

...

Wikipedia with gratuitous images aimed at shock or titillation isn't an encyclopaedia - it's something else.

Absolutely.

...

To my mind, [[Clitoris]], [[Penis]] and so on are valid cases for a photograph of the bits in question on an educational basis. Any more than one (or perhaps two for [[Penis]]) is just making a meal of it.

Rather a nice meal, though.

...

[[Goatse]] doesn't need an article on its own, but perhaps belongs in an article about some aspect of the Web, presumably with a link. [[Autofellatio]] should be one line and no image in the [[Masturbation]] article. If there is such a thing.

It's worth a bit more than a line, in my opinion, not only because it is an extremely rare and difficult form of masturbation, but because you don't get that many men fantasizing about being able to masturbate, but autofellatio is more fascinating. As I remarked in the part of the article that I wrote, Brian Aldiss has his narrator witness an autofellation. The passage is rather electric and (unusually for Aldiss, who isn't noted for his sensitive handling of sex scenes) very erotic. It ends with the narrator fellating his friend. The narrator has already made it clear that although there is a longstanding culture of after-lights-out mutual masturbation, fellatio is normally regarded as beyond the pale.

Christopher Mahan

1:25 p.m.

--- Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

To address the point "what shouldn't be there in the first place": I suggest that the current conflict resolution process is not adequate to meet the challenge posed by such image insertion. I personally don't care for the photo, but, as has been said on this list, the general wiki process would, in time, rectify the situation. I think that to meet the need of many people, the media (photo, whatever) itself needs to be tagged as potentially offensive, and replaced with an image indicating that the linked media is deemed offensive, but where such image is clickable to reach the linked image. Finally, there needs to be a formal process for complaint, which would result in the media being image-linked upon receipt of the complaint, and a formal process similar to arbcom set up to decide on media inclusion, alternative media, and so on. Currently these efforts take place all over wikipedia and in lists and IRC and plenty of people take cheap shots at each other. This would satisfy the casual browser, like me, as well as those who wish greater depth of knowledge, like me. Again, Ambi, I apologize for the bar reference. ===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com chris.mahan(a)gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Skyring

2:06 p.m.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:25:57 -0800 (PST), Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Again, Ambi, I apologize for the bar reference.

Geez, can we stop talking about THAT picture? -- Pete

7060

days inactive

7063

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

50 comments

23 participants

tags (0)

participants (23)

Anthere
Arno M
blankfaze
Chad Perrin
Christiaan Briggs
Christopher Mahan
csherlock＠ljh.com.au
Daniel Mayer
David Gerard
Delirium
Erik Moeller
geni
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
Karl A. Krueger
Lothar Kimmeringer
MPerel
Nicholas Knight
Rebecca
Robin Shannon
sannse
Skyring
Tony Sidaway
Tony Sidaway