From: "Karl A. Krueger" kkrueger@whoi.edu On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:17:34PM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
"Karl A. Krueger" kkrueger@whoi.edu wrote:
Rather, the issue here seems to me to be whether Wikipedia needs some kind of rules under which people's work will be deleted or hidden away on the grounds of being "offensive". I hold that it does not; indeed, that such rules would harm the project. Existing ad-hoc practices work just fine for selecting the work that should be included, on the basis of accuracy, style, neutrality, copyright, and other such rules.
I agree - however, the argument here is being made that linking to a image that is beyond the bounds is NPOV despite the voting and actions by Jimbo.
Setting up "bounds" on the basis solely of offense is not NPOV and is not legitimate for Wikipedia. There are, however, perfectly good legitimate criteria which exclude some of the same images which also offend people.
Note, for instance, that Jimbo did not defend his unlinking of the image on the basis of its offending people, and specifically disclaimed that motive: see [[Talk:Autofellatio#Raul's convo]].
Here's another approach:
The class of images I suspect more people are concerned about is not the class "offensive images", but rather the class "gratuitously offensive images". Most everyone recognizes that there is also a class of "informative images which also offend some people" -- for instance, internal organs, caterpillars, swastikas, hammer-and-sickles, Abu Ghraib, Jesus fish, etc., and that we must use these images in articles where they are relevant.
I agree in fact this is a much better description of what I meant earlier - "gratitiously offensive image" - this would meet that description - and although it does convey the meaning that it can be done. Text in the article actually explains that it can be done with a flexible enough person who is well endowed. There is no additional information given by the image (unless one -from Missouri- says, I don't believe the text, show me). In which case a link would suffice for that person.
...
Unfortunately, the state of the world today is that "offensive" text is much easier for automated systems such as censorware to recognize than "offensive" images. It is easier for a program to pattern-match the word "fellatio" than a picture of same.
Don't some censorware do their job based on a page by page analysis rather than a entire domain block - if not - maybe I have a new project to work on :)
...
I'm not so sure. If the image is informative, then hiding it behind a link relegates it to a second-class status. It has, to me, connotations of sneakiness or dirtiness: "Heh-heh, do you *really* want to see?"
Or it could mean - "some find this objectionable, are you sure you want to see it." which is what it does mean in this case.
I believe this matter was extensively hashed out in the matter of the [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]] article, where presentation of a "censored" or "images suppressed" version of an article was rejected. The talk-page and VfD discussions surrounding that article cluster are informative.
I know - I lurked that discussion for sometime and still don't understand why it was defeated. I, for one, would prefer to read the article (especially as an editor without having to conciously ignore the images - or block all images with my browser - as has been suggested).
**It seems perfectly reasonable to provide alternatives to people especially if the upkeep is non-existent or minimal.**
...
If an image has no educational or encyclopedic content, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, regardless of whether it offends people.
Agreed - and I don't see the encyclopedic content of even the pencil drawing.
Jim (trodel@gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 03:55:26PM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
"Karl A. Krueger" kkrueger@whoi.edu wrote:
The class of images I suspect more people are concerned about is not the class "offensive images", but rather the class "gratuitously offensive images". Most everyone recognizes that there is also a class of "informative images which also offend some people" -- for instance, internal organs, caterpillars, swastikas, hammer-and-sickles, Abu Ghraib, Jesus fish, etc., and that we must use these images in articles where they are relevant.
I agree in fact this is a much better description of what I meant earlier - "gratitiously offensive image" - this would meet that description - and although it does convey the meaning that it can be done.
I agree. Images can be doctored, after all. Images taken from porn are somewhat less than authoritative -- I believe airbrushing and other image doctoring practices are relatively common there.
If the issue here is proof that the act is possible, a citation to a reputable source on the subject would be more worthwhile.
I don't think that the "proof that it's possible" argument is a very serious reason to include the image. We don't include pictures of caterpillars in order to prove that caterpillars exist.
Unfortunately, the state of the world today is that "offensive" text is much easier for automated systems such as censorware to recognize than "offensive" images. It is easier for a program to pattern-match the word "fellatio" than a picture of same.
Don't some censorware do their job based on a page by page analysis rather than a entire domain block - if not - maybe I have a new project to work on :)
Yes, for instance, according to their Web lookup tool, Cyber Patrol does not block Wikipedia but does block /wiki/Autofellatio. I don't know if that block is by URL or by content, though.
I, for one, would prefer to read the article (especially as an editor without having to conciously ignore the images - or block all images with my browser - as has been suggested).
Blocking images at the browser is an excellent way for users to take charge of their own browsing experience, whenever they knowingly go to a site or page that might present something they don't want to see. It is not an extreme measure and should not be characterized as such; it is a perfectly normal feature of the software.
(It is also much easier than doing it on the server side, since it is a matter of setting a preference rather than altering program code.)
**It seems perfectly reasonable to provide alternatives to people especially if the upkeep is non-existent or minimal.**
What kind of alternative are you looking for?
If it is an option of turning images on or off entirely, that already exists, as noted above. Insisting that the programmers have to put this function in the MediaWiki code, when users can already do it on the browser, strikes me as failure of the user to take responsibility.
The user who insists, "I don't WANNA change my browser settings, it's too HAAARD, you SERVER PEOPLE have to quit sending me all these dirty pictures" is, simply, whining. The request for the image is sent by the browser. The server simply fulfills that request ... and the browser can be easily set not to make that request, if the user so chooses.
If it is an option of *selectively* turning off "offensive" images, then the upkeep is neither nonexistent nor minimal -- indeed, it would be a crippling source of constant disputes.
If an image has no educational or encyclopedic content, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, regardless of whether it offends people.
Agreed - and I don't see the encyclopedic content of even the pencil drawing.
Fair enough. That's what we have IfD for.