a) When the WP include videos, we might as well include the beheading.
b) By adopting the "all articles must be treated the same way" we are assuming content is less important than NPOV. This might be true for things but if this is true for persons, I think the project is biased towards "people have no rights and this project has rights over all people".
c) In any case, I see there is a POV here: people have no values worth more than a presumed right of the WP to "inform" (whatever that presumed right might mean).
I know I have a POV. And all of you realize this is not censorship/offensivenes. It is called dignity. I have to say I feel shame while reading many of these posts. And you will tell me you feel shame/pity/nothing/something/whatever at reading this pathetic/emotive/void/interesting/uninteresting post. You know what? It is your problem.
But, Jimbo, do not let Erik's politeness about NPOV mislead you. It is not taste, it is not education, it is a human undeniable right. Which if denied (and it has been here and in the talk page at N.Berg's article) allows us to overcome Wikikette, wikilove and any other concept.
I have to say that in order to keep my peace of mind I am not reading this mailing list any more for a while (at the very least some days). If someone wants to contact me, I am Pfortuny and my address is accessible.
Hope we agree in some little minimalistic but certain human rights before the project collapses,
Pedro.
-- Pedro Fortuny Ayuso: http://pfortuny.sdf-eu.org Colegio Mayor Peñafiel, Universidad de Valladolid C/ Estudios 6, 47005 Valladolid, Spain --> www.cmpenafiel.org pfortuny@sdf-eu.org Tfn. Nr. 34 983 298277
Pedro Fortuny wrote:
Hope we agree in some little minimalistic but certain human rights before the project collapses,
I guess I don't see how we can permit individuals to control what we display. What if the family of the shot fighter in the famous Vietnam war photo alluded to earlier in this discussion objected to the public display of this image of his killing? Should we remove it out of respect for human dignity, despite its historical importance? I would argue we shouldn't. The same goes for the Vietnamese girl covered with napalm---it should stay, even if her family objected.
Note that in this case the family hasn't actually objected. They haven't asked people not to disseminate the video or reprint stills from it, or really said anything at all that would indicate they had a problem with the video itself. Perhaps they do, but they haven't indicated so. Not that I'd expect them to ask us at Wikipedia anything, but if they objected in general, they may have asked the major media organizations not to disseminate the footage or photographs from it, and as far as I can tell they haven't done so.
-Mark
Pedro-
b) By adopting the "all articles must be treated the same way" we are assuming content is less important than NPOV. This might be true for things but if this is true for persons, I think the project is biased towards "people have no rights and this project has rights over all people".
Actually 1) I am the one who blurred the prisoner photos on the Abu Ghraib article in order to protect their identity, after that problem was pointed out 2) I have, from the start, voted against showing Nick Berg's severed head and find that picture in very bad taste, especially as the case is still very much in the news 3) I have suggested a temporarily reduced threshold of hiding offensive photos until we have better technological solutions to let end users make these decisions
So I find your insinuation that this is somehow an attempt by me to campaign for the inclusion of photos that neither I nor you want quite unfair. I am concerned with dealing with this issue in a fair and neutral manner, but I am always open to pragmatic and humanistic arguments.
For example, I could imagine that a compromise could be reached with the 8 users who insist on showing the Nick Berg photo inline to wait with any such move for 1 year, to let the issue cool down, and to only include the photo when user-side filtering technology is in place.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
For example, I could imagine that a compromise could be reached with the 8 users who insist on showing the Nick Berg photo inline to wait with any such move for 1 year, to let the issue cool down, and to only include the photo when user-side filtering technology is in place.
I'd be willing to go along with that, though I think several other images, such as the dead body on [[Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal]] and the spread-open labia on [[clitoris]] should be treated similarly. Possibly also the dead [[John F. Kennedy]], although I don't personally have much of a problem with that one.
-Mark
Delirium-
Erik Moeller wrote:
For example, I could imagine that a compromise could be reached with the 8 users who insist on showing the Nick Berg photo inline to wait with any such move for 1 year, to let the issue cool down, and to only include the photo when user-side filtering technology is in place.
I'd be willing to go along with that, though I think several other images, such as the dead body on [[Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal]] and the spread-open labia on [[clitoris]] should be treated similarly.
If they meet the suggested 80% threshold for linking rather than displaying inline, they should be treated in the same way as the Nick Berg photo until client side filtering at least in some basic form exists.
Regards,
Erik
On 05/13/04 22:28, Delirium wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
For example, I could imagine that a compromise could be reached with the 8 users who insist on showing the Nick Berg photo inline to wait with any such move for 1 year, to let the issue cool down, and to only include the photo when user-side filtering technology is in place.
I'd be willing to go along with that, though I think several other images, such as the dead body on [[Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal]] and the spread-open labia on [[clitoris]] should be treated similarly. Possibly also the dead [[John F. Kennedy]], although I don't personally have much of a problem with that one.
How about the erection photo inline on [[penis]]?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
How about the erection photo inline on [[penis]]?
That one doesn't bother me personally, as I see penises as approximately equivalent to breasts in terms of offensiveness---they're things that are generally kept out of public view, and considered "private", but are easily seen on an unclothed person even if you're standing 30 feet away. Anyone who's been to a nude beach or seen National Geographic documentaries (or really seen at least one male and one female unclothed in any context) has seen both penises and breasts. A visitor to a nude beach who put him or herself in a position to view clitorises, on the other hand, would probably be a bit unusual!
But, regardless of my views, if lots of people find penises much more offensive than breasts, I'd be fine with showing breasts inline and hiding penises.
-Mark