In a message dated 12/22/2008 6:11:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and that means "Wikipedia provides the summary of all knowledge in accordance with good scholarly practices". The English language may be changing, but I think that the word "encyclopedia" still has this meaning and association.>>
------------------------------
Our project is constrained only by the bounds we put on it. We decided not to bind ourselves to "decent" images (whatever that means). If you think this violates the sense of being an "encyclopedia" I would suggest that is because you think this image is "indecent" (meaning obscene) and I have no idea why you can't just say that.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
Our project is constrained only by the bounds we put on it. We decided not to bind ourselves to "decent" images (whatever that means). If you think this violates the sense of being an "encyclopedia" I would suggest that is because you think this image is "indecent" (meaning obscene) and I have no idea why you can't just say that.
I think we disagree over whether or not including indecent images in an encyclopedia constitutes good scholarship. (Yes, I do think the image is obscene, but that is irrelevant.) I argue no; you seem to argue yes; and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
—Thomas Larsen
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.comwrote:
I think we disagree over whether or not including indecent images in an encyclopedia constitutes good scholarship. (Yes, I do think the image is obscene, but that is irrelevant.) I argue no; you seem to argue yes; and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's not irrelevant - it's clearly the basis for your unease and desire to exclude it.
We include a wide variety of indecent images in thousands and thousands of articles. There are explicit images on [[Penis]], just to start with, as the first thing I looked at. I have no doubt that articles on the vagina, breasts, masturbation, various sex acts, etc. can rapidly be found which include explict images.
You are arguing that this album cover is or should be an exception. I think the answer is no.
2008/12/23 Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com:
I think we disagree over whether or not including indecent images in an encyclopedia constitutes good scholarship. (Yes, I do think the image is obscene, but that is irrelevant.) I argue no; you seem to argue yes; and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"indecent" is also a matter of opinion. And equally orthogonal to whether we should write about it, illustrating what on earth we're talking about as we do pretty much every other encyclopedically noteworthy image we talk about.
That it's stupid, crass and distasteful does not mean it isn't of encyclopedic noteworthiness - it's in far too many "worst album covers of all time" lists for that.
Encyclopedic noteworthiness has no relation, positive or negative, to the concerns you're raising, so you're coming across as missing the point.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/23 Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com:
I think we disagree over whether or not including indecent images in an encyclopedia constitutes good scholarship. (Yes, I do think the image is obscene, but that is irrelevant.) I argue no; you seem to argue yes; and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"indecent" is also a matter of opinion. And equally orthogonal to whether we should write about it, illustrating what on earth we're talking about as we do pretty much every other encyclopedically noteworthy image we talk about.
That it's stupid, crass and distasteful does not mean it isn't of encyclopedic noteworthiness - it's in far too many "worst album covers of all time" lists for that.
Encyclopedic noteworthiness has no relation, positive or negative, to the concerns you're raising, so you're coming across as missing the point.
I, too, lament the shocking lack of illustrative material in our article on [[shock site]]s.
-Mark
Thomas,
You have an uphill fight on this. Some of the worse deletion decisions the community has made, have been from people claiming "censorship" and getting massive popular support: I sometimes wonder if a majority of wikipedia editors are still teenage (literally) rebels.
There is another lingering proposal which I think originally came from Erik Moeller which is to tag content with an off/on switch on child-safe, "potentially offensive" or similar. This was in response to a complaint about us removing some gruesome holocaust images from the Schools wikipedia.
The advantages would be an increased preparedness on the part of schools to give access. The disadvantage would be a switch which many people would not bother with and the usual fruitcakes would abuse. We did look at whether the schools wikipedia and Wikipedia 1.0 could be converged as projects if such a switch existed.
On balance there were other priorities.
Andrew/ BozMo
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/23 Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com:
I think we disagree over whether or not including indecent images in an encyclopedia constitutes good scholarship. (Yes, I do think the image is obscene, but that is irrelevant.) I argue no; you seem to argue yes; and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"indecent" is also a matter of opinion. And equally orthogonal to whether we should write about it, illustrating what on earth we're talking about as we do pretty much every other encyclopedically noteworthy image we talk about.
That it's stupid, crass and distasteful does not mean it isn't of encyclopedic noteworthiness - it's in far too many "worst album covers of all time" lists for that.
Encyclopedic noteworthiness has no relation, positive or negative, to the concerns you're raising, so you're coming across as missing the point.
I, too, lament the shocking lack of illustrative material in our article on [[shock site]]s.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/23 Andrew Cates Andrew@soschildren.org:
You have an uphill fight on this. Some of the worse deletion decisions the community has made, have been from people claiming "censorship" and getting massive popular support: I sometimes wonder if a majority of wikipedia editors are still teenage (literally) rebels.
Yes. And given to robotic determinism in implementation of rules. And go away after 12-18 months, like people in most other MMORPGs.
There is another lingering proposal which I think originally came from Erik Moeller which is to tag content with an off/on switch on child-safe, "potentially offensive" or similar. This was in response to a complaint about us removing some gruesome holocaust images from the Schools wikipedia. The advantages would be an increased preparedness on the part of schools to give access. The disadvantage would be a switch which many people would not bother with and the usual fruitcakes would abuse. We did look at whether the schools wikipedia and Wikipedia 1.0 could be converged as projects if such a switch existed. On balance there were other priorities.
Others have proposed a third party rating specific revs of specific articles, sort of like how Veropedia does it. Which is basically a matter of someone bothering who thinks they can do it scalably. But it's unlikely to fly as something to be done on a WMF site itself.
- d.
2008/12/23 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Others have proposed a third party rating specific revs of specific articles, sort of like how Veropedia does it. Which is basically a matter of someone bothering who thinks they can do it scalably. But it's unlikely to fly as something to be done on a WMF site itself.
- d.
You don't rate revs you just prepare a list of whatever content you want to block plug it into dansguardian and make the list available to third parties.
2008/12/23 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/12/23 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Others have proposed a third party rating specific revs of specific articles, sort of like how Veropedia does it. Which is basically a matter of someone bothering who thinks they can do it scalably. But it's unlikely to fly as something to be done on a WMF site itself.
You don't rate revs you just prepare a list of whatever content you want to block plug it into dansguardian and make the list available to third parties.
Next question: what's stopping people from doing this themselves, rather than demanding Wikipedia do it for them? If there's demand for such a service?
- d.
2008/12/23 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/12/23 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/12/23 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Others have proposed a third party rating specific revs of specific articles, sort of like how Veropedia does it. Which is basically a matter of someone bothering who thinks they can do it scalably. But it's unlikely to fly as something to be done on a WMF site itself.
You don't rate revs you just prepare a list of whatever content you want to block plug it into dansguardian and make the list available to third parties.
Next question: what's stopping people from doing this themselves, rather than demanding Wikipedia do it for them? If there's demand for such a service?
- d.
The main difference is that the filtering works from their end and they have to install the software. Keeping track of all of the images on commons is a bit of a pain but the categories should clue you into most of them and once you've got it up and running finding people to keep it going should be possible. The other advantage of course is that you can have multiple lists for people with different standards.
Wikipedia is censored (just ask the 2500 rc patrolers on any given hour). There was lengthy debate about another picture, a naked girl on bike used in the article nudism and managed to hold on despite several deletions. My own point of view is that nude pix of kids is best left for your mother to show to prospective suitors.
Album covers are designed to stand out - what next a war on Nirvana (album)?
Kid porn won't happen on Wikipedia, innocuous images may well be added and probably get removed within minutes. Even adult porn rarely finds a place on Wikipedia, see the talk page of Oral sex.
Filters probably have a place and it was someting I have discussed with editors on-wiki, say during the Depictions of Mohammed petition. Many of those pictures are illegal in some countries and could lead to a criminal conviction.
Wikipedia invariably vets itself based on the overiding principal what is good for the community.
On 12/23/08, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
My own point of view is that nude pix of kids is best left for your mother to show to prospective suitors.
I believe some [of those believing the album cover is illegal] would argue that such a display would have a sexual context and become in some way pornographic.
I wish everyone the requisite maturity and serenity not to call the police on their own mother (or mother-in-law), no matter what she does. You'll thank me for it later.
Probably vacation time for me. Happy hanukwanzmas to everyone, or else!
—C.W.
2008/12/23 Delirium delirium@hackish.org:
David Gerard wrote:
Encyclopedic noteworthiness has no relation, positive or negative, to the concerns you're raising, so you're coming across as missing the point.
I, too, lament the shocking lack of illustrative material in our article on [[shock site]]s.
May I say how glad I am that Goatse is not expressly under a free licence.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/23 Delirium delirium@hackish.org:
I, too, lament the shocking lack of illustrative material in our article on [[shock site]]s.
May I say how glad I am that Goatse is not expressly under a free licence.
Surely a fair-use argument could be made? Not replaceable, use in an encyclopedic context for scholarly commentary on the subject, limited to no impact on commercial value of the image. ;-)
More seriously, images are a bit more problematic than text, simply because they are sometimes unexpectedly unpleasant to look at, and extremely distracting in your peripheral vision while trying to read an article unless you take technical measures in your browser that most people don't know how to take. I know I no longer read most Wikipedia articles on medical procedures, diseases, or anything else that could have a "shock site" style image potentially in it, because I know there's a 50% chance some schmuck has deliberately put a ridiculously gruesome image in it to illustrate some sort of "Wikipedia isn't censored" principle. It's sort of the Wikipedia version of shock sites, only you get lauded for it instead of banned as a troll, like on the rest of the internet.
And yet /sometimes/ I do actually want information about a topic without graphic illustrations thereof, especially if I already know what it is and am just looking up some specific details. Granted, other articles have unnecessary images as well, but the proliferation of images on a place like [[Golden Gate Bridge]] doesn't cause me any harm other than making the text a bit more badly formatted than it might ideally have been.
-Mark