I've changed the "subject line" on purpose. This is *not* really about the propriety of sysop behavior.
I have seen the same thing several times (innumerable times!) since joining Wikipedia almost 4 years ago. It's called "gaming the system". You want a certain thing (for some selfish reason), so you accuse the responsible folks of impropriety. Whereupon they "assume good faith" and take your claim at face value, while you're laughing up your sleeve as you tie everyone in knots.
The real issue is POLICY about images. How much do we want to shock our readers? Are we trying to re-educate them, change their attitude, enlighten them, cleanse their brains of impurities wrought by a misguided culture?
I thought we were just supposed to be a reference book. When the facts are clear, we lay them out for you. What you do with the info is up to you. When the facts are not clear, we describe the controversy over "what's what". Again, what conclusions you draw after that is up to you. We're not supposed to try and change your mind.
The responsible ones among us *know* we're not supposed to use the Wikipedia for advocacy. (If we ever slip into it, we always appreciate the "good catch".) But there are POV pushers still.
/A chorus of shocked gasps fills the room/
*You shouldn't make such a big deal out of poo. Here's some in your face, get used to it, it's real, it's here; nothing to make a fuss over.
That is prescriptive. It's an attempt to change attitudes.
If we need images of human feces or dog turds or horse manure, why not create a sidebare article called [[Images of feces]]? A link or two in the article won't offend too many people.
Uncle Ed
On 6/14/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
*You shouldn't make such a big deal out of poo. Here's some in your face, get used to it, it's real, it's here; nothing to make a fuss over.
That is prescriptive. It's an attempt to change attitudes.
If we need images of human feces or dog turds or horse manure, why not create a sidebare article called [[Images of feces]]? A link or two in the article won't offend too many people.
Hogwash.
When you systematically remove informative content that your personal system of values deems as offensive or unethical you force the encyclopedia to adopt your bias: By removing content that is considered by some to be 'wrong' because it is considered to be 'wrong' we make the statement that the encyclopedia considers the content is wrong and therefor present a non neutral point of view.
There are plenty of people who would be sufficently shocked by our mentioning of matters sexual or outside a single religion, so when we are done removing useful images because some people are offended do we then begin to delete articles about 'wrong' subjects?
The question for exclusion should be based on the images ability to inform. We should exclude content that has no value to teach. This does not mean we should include every potentially informative image, but rather we should select the most informative subset and of the remaining equally most informative results we should select the ones which best satisfy secondary artistic and editorial criteria.
So for example, perhaps a particular image of feces is considered especially disgusting but someone has found an image of equal informative ability that most consider less disgusting. Thus decision between the two images is an editorial judgement and does not interact with NPOV. I do not advocate that 'majority shock' should be encouraged or the risk of which intentionally ignored, but rather that because of NPOV all decisions of taste should take a secondary role by only being used to decide among multiple choices of substantially equally informative value.
I'm pretty clueless when it comes to feces, and would like to stay that way :), so I can't fairly gauge what the informative ability of a given image is... But I strongly object to how you've framed the argument.
I saw someone adding a whole buch of inclusions of a feces image a while back.
What bothered me about it was mostly the size of the image. In some articles the images was larger than the text itself.
That, and I really don't think such an image has added value in case of the article on South Park's Mr. Hankey (in which he's depicted himself).
--Mgm
On 6/14/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
*You shouldn't make such a big deal out of poo. Here's some in your face, get used to it, it's real, it's here; nothing to make a fuss over.
That is prescriptive. It's an attempt to change attitudes.
If we need images of human feces or dog turds or horse manure, why not create a sidebare article called [[Images of feces]]? A link or two in the article won't offend too many people.
Hogwash.
When you systematically remove informative content that your personal system of values deems as offensive or unethical you force the encyclopedia to adopt your bias: By removing content that is considered by some to be 'wrong' because it is considered to be 'wrong' we make the statement that the encyclopedia considers the content is wrong and therefor present a non neutral point of view.
There are plenty of people who would be sufficently shocked by our mentioning of matters sexual or outside a single religion, so when we are done removing useful images because some people are offended do we then begin to delete articles about 'wrong' subjects?
The question for exclusion should be based on the images ability to inform. We should exclude content that has no value to teach. This does not mean we should include every potentially informative image, but rather we should select the most informative subset and of the remaining equally most informative results we should select the ones which best satisfy secondary artistic and editorial criteria.
So for example, perhaps a particular image of feces is considered especially disgusting but someone has found an image of equal informative ability that most consider less disgusting. Thus decision between the two images is an editorial judgement and does not interact with NPOV. I do not advocate that 'majority shock' should be encouraged or the risk of which intentionally ignored, but rather that because of NPOV all decisions of taste should take a secondary role by only being used to decide among multiple choices of substantially equally informative value.
I'm pretty clueless when it comes to feces, and would like to stay that way :), so I can't fairly gauge what the informative ability of a given image is... But I strongly object to how you've framed the argument. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/15/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
The question for exclusion should be based on the images ability to inform. We should exclude content that has no value to teach. This does not mean we should include every potentially informative image, but rather we should select the most informative subset and of the remaining equally most informative results we should select the ones which best satisfy secondary artistic and editorial criteria.
I think this is the correct approach. There's no problem with having informative images, even if they are of human faeces. But there's no reason why we cannot also take into account that certain people have certain sensitivities, and choose an image that is more appropriate.
The image in question (a particularly sticky-looking poo) was chosen for its particularly disgusting quality. It was intended to offend, not to educate. We wouldn't tolerate intentionally offensive prose, and we should not tolerate intentionally offensive images.
not to educate. We wouldn't tolerate intentionally offensive prose, and we should not tolerate intentionally offensive images.
Only in the last 20th century there has happened hundreds of massacres that a textual description of would make anyone sick to their stomach. Should we not tolerate someone writing or reciting this?
Loose the word "intentionally" because noone can accurately guess someon else intent. Loose the word "offensive" because not everyone takes offense. What you are left with is a picture of shit in an article about shit.
You have heard it lots that Wikipedia is not a "vehicle of free speech". But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the morale conservatists to present their opinion as the truth.
This has nothing to do with one's political or even moral philosophy. I don't think the image has any educational value, and I also believe it was chosen just for its shock value.
The entire issue has been arranged as a false dilemma. "Which do we have, no illustrations or one which is intentionally disgusting?" The more sober answer, keeping in mind the goal of the encyclopedia and cooling our jets about turning everything into a battle against "prudes", is that we should look for more images if those are only options.
I'm happy to try and put together a diagram illustrating the different processes of human digestion that food matter goes through when being turned into feces. I think it would be infinitely better. Heck, I'd even try to make it up to Featured Image quality. Then maybe there wouldn't be any real question about whether linking to (rather than inlining) a picture of something that every human on the planet has probably seen on a fairly "regular" basis, yet most find repellant when presented to them in another context, is hampering any educational goals.
The goals of the encyclopedia should be first on our agenda. They are enough of a dramatic statement in and of themself without having to declare ourselves so far above all models of prudery. Edit wars over what I think most people would agree count as a "shocking" image (whether or not you think it should be displayed anyway or not) are not a good use of our time.
If someone knows a good reference off-hand (is there a physiologist in the house?) for the diagram in question, please feel free to send me an e-mail or leave it on my talk page. Thanks.
FF
On 6/15/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
not to educate. We wouldn't tolerate intentionally offensive prose, and we should not tolerate intentionally offensive images.
Only in the last 20th century there has happened hundreds of massacres that a textual description of would make anyone sick to their stomach. Should we not tolerate someone writing or reciting this?
Loose the word "intentionally" because noone can accurately guess someon else intent. Loose the word "offensive" because not everyone takes offense. What you are left with is a picture of shit in an article about shit.
You have heard it lots that Wikipedia is not a "vehicle of free speech". But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the morale conservatists to present their opinion as the truth.
-- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
If we need images of human feces or dog turds or horse manure, why not create a sidebare article called [[Images of feces]]? A link or two in the article won't offend too many people.
Uncle Ed
[[Images of feces]] is currently on VfD.
RickK
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
I don't feel that including an image of human feces is inappropriate. Having it huge and then plastered all over tangentially-related articles is vandalism, and Eyeon should note that _that_ is a perfectly valid reason for being blocked.
Sam
On 6/14/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
If we need images of human feces or dog turds or horse manure, why not create a sidebare article called [[Images of feces]]? A link or two in the article won't offend too many people.
Uncle Ed
[[Images of feces]] is currently on VfD.
RickK
Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l