Pedro Fortuny wrote: Here again we have Wikipedians trying to turn this into an ideological tool. What makes you say the above? A great many philosophers disagree with that statement. -Mark

Mark Richards wrote: Well, the same could be said of many pictures. We could say "he was beheaded", or we could illustrate it, or we could do both. I see it as fairly similar to the Abu Ghraib pictures, where technically speaking we could convey the same information with words (we could describe what exactly is going on in the pictures instead of showing them), but that serves as a somewhat euphemistic substitute for showing the actual images. I do think it's okay to do that with the severed head though, but still include a link to the image. This isn't the only image of a dead person on Wikipedia, for what it's worth. There's a fairly close-up and easily-identifiable photograph of John F. Kennedy's corpse on that page, and a photograph on Abu Ghraib of a prisoners' corpse packed in ice, with a face only slightly obscured by a bandage. -Mark

Mark Gerdes wrote: Both of those pictures had already crossed my mind as I was considering this subject. Ec

Good point, well made. Mark R. --- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:11:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards <marich712000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Mark is talking sense here. And on the issue of my-own-two-cents... One of the nice things about Wikipedia, I have found, is that I can view an article on, say, [[shock site]]s without being shown the picture of the goatse man. Is there any objection to having this and similar images linked besides the fact that it may (or may not) possibly be construed as POV or judgemental? I'll take a good dose of "being nice to the reader" over a theoretical and/or philisophical objection any day of the week. ~~~~ (that does not work inna email, darnit)

Erik Moeller wrote: I disagree, and think you wish to abandon NPOV for photos. You wish to adopt the principle that we should err on the side of showing photos, based on your personal point of view that people should not find things offensive that you do not find offensive. When there is disagreement, we should side with the "not offensive" camp. For what it's worth, I think the majority of articles you have worked on on Wikipedia are similarly flawed, as your idea of NPOV, couched in rather pretentious language, is to promote your political ideology. This can be seen on things like [[Roman Catholicism]], which turn into long rants about birth control, with disingenuous edit summaries about "NPOV" (I don't like the Roman Catholic Church either, but that article is ridiculous). -Mark

Erik Moeller wrote: I think the primary difference is that photos can be shocking, while text generally isn't. If the [[Mother Theresa]] article *did* include truly shocking text, like referring to her with epithets of some sort, that would be a problem, but there are very few cases where an article can be both highly shocking and even close to neutral. Perhaps the closest would be quoting someone else who used an epithet, if the quote happened to be relevant (perhaps quoting someone who said disparaging things about [[Jesus]] or [[Mohammad]] or something), but I haven't run across a case where anyone tried to insert such quotes. Photos, however, are pretty easy to make shocking. I might wish to read an article about [[clitoris]], for example, but find it rather difficult to do so when there is a photograph of a woman spreading open her genitalia with her fingers in the sidebar. None of this is "shocking" meant in a conceptual sense, but in a visceral sense---the photos of the prisoner standing on a box with wires on his hands are conceptually shocking, but should obviously stay, and I think the criticisms of Mother Theresa are more analogous to that sort of shocking, if they're analogous to any sort of shocking photos. For what it's worth, I usually find myself on the opposite side of this debate, as most people in the US at least take a more restrictive view of what should be permitted on things like TV and radio than I do. If anyone were arguing we *remove* these photographs entirely, I would find that problematic; it's just being in-your-face about them that I find unnecessary. -Mark

On May 12, 2004, at 5:33 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: Fair enough. I would say that the primary difference between text and image in this case is that text can be skimmed and skipped. It is *much* harder to avoid an image, especially an image one finds disturbing or offensive. Peter -- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --

Ray Saintonge wrote: In hopes of reaching towards common ground here, I think that all sides to this discussion can agree that this is really the essence of the problem with images, as opposed to text. With text, we generally have a wide range of options. It's almost never really "either/or". Take for example the [[Mother Theresa]] article. That's one which was hard fought for a long time, but which has since stabilized in a form acceptable to all sides, as evidenced by the fact that it has seen only minor changes for a couple of months. With photos, our range of creative options to resolve conflict is more limited. In some cases, we can change the photograph itself. This will be true mostly for photos of generic concepts, and a lot less true for newsworthy photos, and virtually impossible for photos that are themselves of historical importance. And so, this is what poses the problem. As our range of options is limited, it is harder to find one which is acceptable to almost everyone. I do think, though, that in most cases, the option that is going to be most widely acceptable to all sides is to show the potentially offensive image, but behind a link with appropriate warnings. I am trying hard to understand why Erik thinks it is neutral to have a policy that we always force people to show potentially offensive images within the article, except in the extraordinary case where 95% are opposed. I do not understand how he thinks that showing an image is neutral to both sides of the dispute, when for example 70% are opposed to it. --Jimbo

Jimmy- Exactly. If you take a look at Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion, you will see that all options were offered, and the option of *showing the photo inline* (instead of just a link) got the most votes of all. So your belief that people will readily accept hiding "offensive" images behind links is clearly wrong; many people (including myself) perceive this as an endorsement of a pro-censorship POV and are therefore against it. Even if these people were in the minority, there would hardly be any consensus on the matter. What I can agree on, on the basis of the Nick Berg poll, is this: If there is 95-100% agreement that an image is offensive, or that it is offensive enough to others that it should be linked, then it should be linked. Currently there is one vote "offensive, but show"; this is the kind of vote which I can agree we can ignore. Removing it, we have 2 in favor of showing inline with 27 in favor of linking. That's still below 95%, but I believe with a large enough sample and a clear policy we would get there (if not, I would be willing to lower the threshold to 90%). So it appears that you believe that there will be consensus in cases where there clearly won't; that's fine, as long as we agree that consensus is a requirement for hiding an image behind a link. Regards, Erik

Jimmy- :-) Interesting. What would you say if the voters had voted differently? It's not about whose viewpoint is correct. It's about not implicitly and selectively endorsing the view that the image is offensive. If all people agree that the image is sufficiently offensive to hide it, then hiding it is not the expression of an opinion but the expression of a fact. If, however, only some people feel that way and others do not, then the image should not be hidden. Aside from any NPOV issues with the image itself (is it manipulative? singled out? fake? etc.), an image is a *fact*. Nobody disputes that Lynndie England held a prisoner in Abu Ghraib on a leash. What some people claim is that this particular image in this particular article should not be shown inline because it is offensive to them. If we do this, then we *selectively* endorse this point of view. If we selectively show it, we endorse the opposite view. If we show all images where there is no consensus that they are offensive, we endorse *no* point of view. Now you appear to argue that by doing that we make some people unhappy, hence we violate NPOV. I'm sure the Mother Teresa article will also make some people unhappy, but I'm hardly willing to make them happier by removing or hiding some inconvenient facts. Now who is responsible for the unhappiness on that article -- me, for not being willing to censor an article, or those who seek to hide or remove information without just cause? Am I obligated to seek compromise even when that implies removing or hiding facts which nobody disputes? I do not believe this to be the spirit of NPOV, and if it was your original idea, then your original idea was wrong. NPOV is about *neutrality*, not about transforming Wikipedia into a real world version of Fahrenheit 451. NPOV is about expressing facts as facts and opinions as opinions. We should always strive to find solutions that are acceptable to all, but not at the expense of truth or neutrality. To me, it appears you are mixing different concepts - neutrality, WikiLove, consensus, compromise - into one big messy substance that you are spreading all over the place. That is legitimate, but that substance is not the essence of NPOV, it is the essence of Wikipedia. Now how do we express WikiLove and the quest for compromise on this issue? I'll accept that by showing the images, one could claim that we are making an implicit claim that such images are acceptable. That is a false claim, but it is an easy misunderstanding of NPOV. That's why I'm perfectly willing to tolerate things like disclaimers, and to add a "Hide images" feature to the software. I'm also willing to accept that images which are offensive to a substantial majority should not be shown in the intro, so that the disclaimer can be viewed and the user can make an informed decision about viewing the images. It seems to me that I am willing to make a lot of concessions to a point of view that is not my own. I am not willing to accept that we should hide certain images because a substantial majority believes they may be offensive, as I view this as completely against NPOV, an implicit endorsement of the majority point of view. Um, no, I think that when 95% of the people think it should not be shown, that *is* a consensus. Absolutely not. It is the essence of NPOV. N stands for Neutrality. "Creative solving" often means edit wars. I'd prefer discussing the matter instead. But I can agree that votes should only be used if no consensus can be found. If other people are more willing to abandon neutrality than I am, I cannot stop them. However, in any discussion in which I am involved I will forcefully argue for respecting our policy. The consensus building should happen through the discussion, not through the voting system. Letting a vote automatically decide the most acceptable option is not a good way to work towards a *neutral* solution. It would, however, be a good way to work towards a general policy on the matter. Regards, Erik

Perter Jaros Wrote: Front Page? [[Shocking Subject]] See: [[Shocking Subject (With Photos)]] [[Shocking Subject (No Photos)]] Suppressed Images? [[Shocking Subject]] [Enable Photos] Linked Images: [[Shocking Subject]] [[Socking Subject Image Gallery]] Either would be OK with me. I am not even looking at consistency. I think each article needs to be treated on a case by case basis for text already, format-wise. Likewise images can be dealt with on a case by case basis. ===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

Erik Moeller wrote: By your standards then, we will show all images, no matter how offensive, with possibly goatse and little else being "censored". Note that the Nick Berg decapitation image now only has 81% support for not putting it inline, so by not having it inline we are, by your argument, catering to the non-neutral majority POV that images of decapitated heads should not be displayed. -Mark

I wrote: Damnit. And I wanted to avoid saying "decapitated head". Apologies to all concerned. Regards, Erik

Jimmy- Yes, but only because the voting system would force me to rank my choices like that, even if I find only one of them to be in compliance with our policy. True. I have already addressed this argument. We don't do that because we aren't selective. There are no NPOV issues at all as long as we don't take a position. There are issues of Wikiquette, WikiLove etc., I agree with you on that point. But it's not an NPOV issue if we don't say "Look at *this* image, but don't look at *this* image!" (nor would it be an NPOV issue if we said "Don't look at *any* image until you explicitly request it", but most people would find that option unacceptable for an encyclopedia). In order to address the issue of expressing *respect* for the other point of view (which is a part of Wikiquette), I have no problem with - a disclaimer at the beginning of the page for pages that contain images widely considered offensive - a "hide all images link" next to it. - moving images widely considered offensive to a point where they aren't immediately visible, so that the reader has a fair opportunity to hide them - allowing a user preference to hide such images by default when viewing a page - until these features are all in place, setting the threshold lower (70- 80%) to avoid offense I'd say I'm willing to make quite a few concessions here, and I agree that such concessions are required by policy. However, it is not the NPOV policy, it is Wikiquette. This is also a very important policy for helping people to work together, and it would be foolish and wrong to point to neutrality as a justification for not searching compromises. However, it would also be foolish to treat NPOV as something it isn't, which could very well lead us down a road where we compromise on matters which we shouldn't compromise on (namely the very neutrality of our encyclopedia). Hm, that's an interesting claim. On the basis of which poll do you claim that most people don't want to adopt this proposed policy, with and/or without the above additional measures? Yes, it *is* a point of view to say that we show all images by default, however, it is not a POV pertaining to any individual article, just like any other policy is itself a point of view about how to build an encyclopedia, including the NPOV policy itself. The key point is that it is not in violation of said NPOV policy, which does not say "We must hold no opinions about how to build an encyclopedia" (which would be nonsensical) but which does say that articles must not endorse specific opinions. By going with whatever the majority prefers, we would do that. By showing all images by default we don't. If, say, 70% of the people think that the criticisms of Mother Teresa are "too dominant", how can we argue with a straight face that the article is neutral? Simple. By looking at the neutral point of view policy, which is not about majorities, but about certain ways to express facts and opinions neutrally. Now, I agree with you entirely on the need to search compromise, and that compromise may include temporary transgressions against the spirit and letter of the actual NPOV policy. But to say that an article must make the majority happy to be neutral is a nonsensical claim. In fact, when we *have* to choose between being nice and being neutral, being neutral should always come out on top. You are searching compromise in the wrong department. You want to make it mandatory to compromise on our neutrality, while I seek ways to preserve neutrality while still making all sides of the dispute happy. Your solution is the easy way out and a good way to "keep the peace", but it is not a good way to find true neutrality. Instead, please help me in implementing and advocating solutions which make available additional *choices* to end users, so that we don't have to simply go with whatever the majority currently prefers. Regards, Erik

Jimmy- No, because the question is not about whether the image of Nick Berg's head, or any other, should be removed *per se*. The question is whether it should be removed or hidden because of the *offense* it may cause. We may still argue to remove it for other reasons - copyright, usefulness, context, quality .. (I think aside from its offense, there is a significant lack of usefulness in case of the Nick Berg image, for example.) The same of course applies to text. It would be inherently POV to say "This text must be moved to a separate page because I find it highly offensive" unless the offense is so obvious and so blatant that everyone shares it or respects it. But it would be perfectly legitimate to say about the same text: "This has nothing to do with the subject of this article. It should be summarized and expanded elsewhere." Or: "This particular phrasing, while correct, is needlessly offensive. I have suggested a different wording which is also correct and doesn't have that problem." In fact working towards finding compromises here, as long as they don't have a negative effect on the neutrality of the article, is a requirement for working together. So far no additional options have been offered in these discussions, such as the technological ones which I have suggested, and the fact that people support such compromises does not mean that they wouldn't support a policy which effectively does not require them. Not by me, but I appreciate that. I think you are mixing different concepts and that this isn't beneficial to the discussion. It's typical for you - when you send out your "Let's all be nice" messages, they are often a blur of different ideas in your head, the idea to create an encyclopedia, the idea to work together in peace, the idea to not endorse specific points of view .. Other people have since taken these ideas, which are all brilliant, and have developed them into coherent, separate policies and goals which all need to be met when working on articles. The need to work towards compromise *is* an essential component of Wikipedia policy, but it has its own name - Wikiquette. By blurring the concepts we risk sacrificing one for the other. I hope that you won't make an official proclamation to enforce such a blurring of different goals. There are enough problems with NPOV as it is (the policy is unclear on many key points). It would effectively be a step backwards in the evolution of Wikipedia. While I think that the NPOV policy does not allow for "objective truth", I strongly believe in a puristic interpretation of the policy itself and yes, in the goal (the ideal, as Cunctator put it) of reaching true *neutrality* on issues. That does not mean that I want to abandon Wikiquette, not at all, but I want it to be treated as a separate goal which can often be reached by different means. If only one of them can be reached (which will rarely but sometimes be the case), I believe our mission as an encylopedia requires us to go for being neutral over being nice. Ideally we should reach a state of stability on an article not through attrition (as in the case of MT) but through being able to say: "Look, this is our policy. If these facts about Scientology / the Mormons / Martha Stewart are correct, they can be included. We may try to find ways to present them in such a way that they are more acceptable to you, but only if this does not have an impact on the neutrality of the article." If people can't work within such a framework, I think they shouldn't work on Wikipedia at all. Let's not forget that we are first and foremost an encyclopedia. Regards, Erik

Erik Moeller wrote: Well, it's now at 5 in favor of inline, and 28 in favor of linking, a mere 84%. -Mark

Jimmy Wales wrote: I'm glad to hear this. Majorities can sometimes use the result of a vote as an excuse to stop seeking compromise. An option to hide all images is still useful, but that has nothing to do with offensiveness. It would be welcome by people with slow internet connections as we keep getting away from plain vanilla text articles. Ec

On Thu, 13 May 2004 07:02:04 -0700, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)bomis.com&gt; wrote: The man talks sense once again. Wikipedia is great in that I can view a page about any number of shock sites without seeing the actual image. I still have yet to discover any *practical* reasons why the image must remain in the article. It's fairly clear, in this case at least, that many, many people find it offensive, and this is a good practical reason to link instead of showing the image. On the other hand, we see several objections to linking along the lines of "it could be construed as censorship" or "it could be construed as POV" et cetera. No one even argued that it would be excessively inconvenient or anything like that... I view images as a convenience to the reader. When they are offensive to a significant number of readers, they should not be immediately displayed. Even if that number isn't a majority, if (say) even a third of the population is disturbed by the mere sight of the image- why would we NOT want to link instead of embed? Then there's the matter of "offensive". I mean this more in the gut-reaction sense of "oh my god that is HORRIBLE!" or "eww, gross, why are they showing that?"- perhaps "disturbing" or "disgusting" would be more accurate. I would imagine that many people would have philisophical objections to stuff portrayed in images (think Bush, Gore, Image:Angelab.jpg, other related issues... do we have any pictures of flag burnings, perhaps?) I think it would be rather obvious that it's the "disgusting" and objectionable sort of images which we would attempt to obscure rather than the ones which are philisophically/politically/etc disagreeable. Wisdom in a private IRC conversation: <CimonAvaro> I think the only thing to do is to cool things down, and later, when the dust has settled, get serious about what our _fundamental_ policy with images should be, beyond copyright concerns. We (including you), can't see this clearly while staring at Bergs head.

Jimmy- ??? That's not the proposal. I think you misunderstood what has been discussed. See http://scireview.de/wikipedia/ihide/ (tested in Mozilla). You would have a link to dynamically hide images *on that particular page*. To prevent people from viewing the image before they choose to hide it, the offensive image would be moved out of immediate view, perhaps to the bottom of the page. (It would be required by policy that adding such images is only allowed when the page is long enough to do that.) There would be a user preference to hide images on such pages (those with a <warning> tag) by default to avoid all risk of stumbling across one by accident. That should not be the default, however, because then we would implicitly endorse the majority POV -- instead we endorse no POV, make only neutral statements about the offensiveness of images, and offer people the choice to tell the server "Please endorse my POV on this image", by clicking the hide link. Last but not least, when there is clear consensus on the matter, images could still be moved to a separate page. Regards, Erik

Gabriel Wicke wrote: If such spoiler or nudism is meant to be displayed inline within a paragraph, then the <div> tag will force it into a separate paragraph. Of course, if there were support for <span> tags, then we could use those... - David