The question is not one of Censorship but of Editorial Control and are the photos, etc helping us meet our mission - which is to become an trusted encyclopedic source of information.
Two thoughts: 1) The assumption that adults would not be offended by seeing this photo inline is naive - just because I want to learn about something doesn't mean I want to see it performed (whether that be autofellatio or beheadings or whatever) - in fact IMHO wanting to learn about something by going to an encylopedia should imply that a scholarly or educational view of the subject is desired - for a Mass Media interpretation - one would just use google (or their favorite search engine). And if one really wanted to see it - use an image search.
2) Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type. I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may have wanted one).
=Summary= I have been using wikipedia for some time (though I only recently started actively editing) and am concerned that the mission to provide a repository of generally accessible information is being changed so that it won't be generally acceptable (and thus not accessible either). The great thing about a web based encyclopedia is that with one click can provide additional information about a subject (or see a picture of it, etc) for those that want it. These arguments about using your browser correctly, accusations of censorship, etc miss the point and the mission of wikipedia.
Like James, I have been recommeding wikipedia to many (though in my case it is adults aged 30-70 with most in the 50-70 range*). If we can't come to a concensus that includes a 1) generally acceptable standard with 2) links to the additional (possibly offensive material), I won't be able to keep making that recommendation.
==QUESTION== Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a link" not considered a reasonable?
Jim (trodel@gmail.com) [[User:Trödel]]
*These are generally intelligent people who usually already have a computer but they have heard of spyware, viruses, porn, etc. and are not sure they want to make the transition to "always on" access to the internet. "Won't people be able to snoop into my computer?" is a typical question. Currently, I setup firefox, install spyware protection software, install a web-meeting software so if they have a problem they can call me and I can help, and setup bookmarks based on their interest, which currently always include wikipedia.
"Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school). You can call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will let you), but those are the cold hard facts."
I agree with these sentiments, James.
Jim Trodel said:
==QUESTION=Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a link" not considered a reasonable?
I don't know anyone who doesn't think it's reasonable. Inlining is far better, however, for technical reasons that I outlined earlier. Hopefully it will be generally possible in a not-too-distant future version of Wikipedia to let the user control what he sees using server-side controls instead of his browser controls; I do not expect this to appease those who seem to want a bowdlerpedia, however.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:09:16 -0500, Jim Trodel trodel@gmail.com wrote:
The question is not one of Censorship but of Editorial Control and are the photos, etc helping us meet our mission - which is to become an trusted encyclopedic source of information.
Two thoughts:
- The assumption that adults would not be offended by seeing this
photo inline is naive - just because I want to learn about something doesn't mean I want to see it performed (whether that be autofellatio or beheadings or whatever) - in fact IMHO wanting to learn about something by going to an encylopedia should imply that a scholarly or educational view of the subject is desired - for a Mass Media interpretation - one would just use google (or their favorite search engine). And if one really wanted to see it - use an image search.
- Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type.
I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may have wanted one).
=Summary= I have been using wikipedia for some time (though I only recently started actively editing) and am concerned that the mission to provide a repository of generally accessible information is being changed so that it won't be generally acceptable (and thus not accessible either). The great thing about a web based encyclopedia is that with one click can provide additional information about a subject (or see a picture of it, etc) for those that want it. These arguments about using your browser correctly, accusations of censorship, etc miss the point and the mission of wikipedia.
Like James, I have been recommeding wikipedia to many (though in my case it is adults aged 30-70 with most in the 50-70 range*). If we can't come to a concensus that includes a 1) generally acceptable standard with 2) links to the additional (possibly offensive material), I won't be able to keep making that recommendation.
==QUESTION== Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a link" not considered a reasonable?
Jim (trodel@gmail.com) [[User:Trödel]]
*These are generally intelligent people who usually already have a computer but they have heard of spyware, viruses, porn, etc. and are not sure they want to make the transition to "always on" access to the internet. "Won't people be able to snoop into my computer?" is a typical question. Currently, I setup firefox, install spyware protection software, install a web-meeting software so if they have a problem they can call me and I can help, and setup bookmarks based on their interest, which currently always include wikipedia.
"Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school). You can call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will let you), but those are the cold hard facts."
I agree with these sentiments, James.
Is anyone listening? I do not understand why some do not seem to accept the perfectly sensible points expressed above.
I think people are losing sight of the fact that the more involved Wikipedians, and more intensive Internet users generally, are *not* representative of the real world. (If our content does indeed reflect the majority of Wikipedians, rather than a sizable minority or vocal minority)
We *do* need to moderate/self-censor, and not to our own standards, but with a view as to what the general reading public expects.
And we damn well have to do that whether we agree with the "general public" or "mainstream" or whatever you want to call the "reasonable common denominator" (I say this without intending to suggest that perhaps a majority of Wikipedians don't agree with such views). Neither is there need to start arguing about the fact that what's acceptable to some isn't acceptable to others. By and large, as regards the controversial stuff that has been discussed, it's damn well obvious what the majority of the reading public will expect/want.
So it comes down to some Wikipedians acting against their own viewpoints if we wish to continue to provide an encyclopaedia that is suitable for general access.
Zoney
P.S. By all means I will switch to a more moderated fork if that situation ever does arise. I consider some of the current controversies quite unacceptable.
Also re: Vandalism. Yes that's not our fault. But again I say it's quite unacceptable to allow quite so catastrophic IMAGE vandalism. I'm not offering a solution unfortunately, but I do not believe that means I can't express how big an impact this problem has.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
Zoney said:
re: Vandalism. Yes that's not our fault.
Yes it is. We let *anybody* edit our site and we make no effort to defer edits until they have been checked for suitability. The result is our responsibility.
That's an odd argument. It reminds me of the argument some people make when they say women who wear "provocative" clothing are "asking for it."
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
That's an odd argument. It reminds me of the argument some people make when they say women who wear "provocative" clothing are "asking for it."
But that argument should not be dismissed so lightly as some kind of blame-the-victim tactic. I've had similar questions come up in a parent-teacher discussion about highschool dress codes. Teenage girls tend to respond very much to peer pressure in fashion trends. Burying their heads in the sand on this subject tends to leave their but ends invitingly in the air. They often have no idea about the messages they are sending.
If this provocation leads to a "rape" the law may very well succeed in punishing the "rapist", but it does nothing to get the "victim" to accept her share of the responsibility for her actions.
Ec
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
Zoney said:
re: Vandalism. Yes that's not our fault.
Yes it is. We let *anybody* edit our site and we make no effort to defer edits until they have been checked for suitability. The result is our responsibility.
That's an odd argument.
Not at all. We deliberately give absolute editorial control over the contents of practically every one of the pages on our website. We do not take reasonable precautions to prevent inappropriate material appearing on our servers. If someone goes to look up Jesus Christ and gets a Linda Lovelace picture instead, we will be held to blame.
--- Jim Trodel trodel@gmail.com wrote:
The question is not one of Censorship but of Editorial Control and are the photos, etc helping us meet our mission - which is to become an trusted encyclopedic source of information.
Then don't filter/censor/self-censor/editorialize and: * Let grown ups decide for themselves * Stay NPOV * Help in creating the "Approved articles for under 17 audiences" (or whatever it is in your jurisdiction)
NPOV requires us to not suppress the views of the minority just to please the majority. NPOV also requires us to not discriminate against non-US, non-English speaking, non-Christian, non-White, and non-Republican views (I almost wrote fascist... sigh).
An encyclopedia is an exposition, a knowledge book, of mankind's experience on this planet. All subjects are by definition required. Leaving some out for a purpose means we will have failed at making a good encyclopedia.
Just as mankind's experiences can be joyous and gleeful, so can they be shocking and senseless. Just as men and women can treat each other with brotherly love and parental care, so can they treat each other with disdain and depravity.
I for one make no judgement one way or another. In one country, some things are allowed, even encouraged, and others frowned upon, in bad taste, even illegal. In another country, the reverse is true. Am I so high and mighty that I can tell my neighbors right from wrong on the land of their fathers and grandfathers? I think not.
==Grownups== Have you seen the internet lately? Crime, corruption, fud, sex, violence, greed, lies, deaths and gruesome deaths vie for attention with the Grammys. Yet there is also beauty, love, and friendship. Part of what makes a person mature is the ability to filter the good from the bad. If there was no sin, there would be no need for grace.
And when I want information on sexually transmitted diseases and S&M, I want wikipedia to be complete. Incompleteness is worse than useless.
==Kids== Just like the internet is not a place for american suburban 8 year olds, so is wikipedia. I have no problem with people telling parents to be leery of letting their kids into wikipedia.
Teens grow up and discover wikipedia and they become adults real-fast. But they would become adults anyway, and hopefully wikipedia will give them a broad and balanced view of the world, rather than the narrow and bigoted view they glean from their school so-called friends.
Young children have different needs. I would not put an 8-year old on wikipdedia if I was not sitting with then with my hand on the mouse.
But remember that not all children need this type of parenting. There are boys and girl prostitutes in many countries that are just 11 and 12. I suggest that these children, if they ever get access to wikipedia, will really need the information that is in the adult version.
Finally,
Unless we allow everything, we will just not be trusted. Want to know about the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades? Go to wikipedia. Want to know about the Rwandan Genocide? Go to wikipedia. Did you know that Shanghai has the largest seaport in the world? Yes, you guessed it, from Wikipedia.
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else is missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I enjoyed your essay (and you may be surprised that I agree with most of it). Unfortunately it addresses an argument that I am not making: i.e. that we should not include certain subject matter (though I do think that [[Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion]] shows that we can come to a concensus and standards for even making that difficult decision).
As to the subject matter at hand, and the compromised proposed by those who object to the image. The question remains: ************** Why is the compromise, i.e. "To not include the image inline but make it accessible by a link" not considered reasonable? **************
But remember that not all children need this type of parenting. There are boys and girl prostitutes in many countries that are just 11 and 12. I suggest that these children, if they ever get access to wikipedia, will really need the information that is in the adult version.
Hopefully if such children get access to wikipedia they will find out about child slavery and support organizations that want to help them them get out of bondage. And even more hopefully, wikipedia will be part of spreading knowledge (and the associated freedom that comes from acting on knowledge) in such a way that 11 and 12 your old prostitutes don't exist.
Unless we allow everything, we will just not be trusted. Want to know about the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades? Go to wikipedia. Want to know about the Rwandan Genocide? Go to wikipedia. Did you know that Shanghai has the largest seaport in the world? Yes, you guessed it, from Wikipedia.
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else is missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
And what of the mistrust that comes from looking up a topic you have heard of and are not quite sure what it means (although you can guess) and immediately seeing a very graphic image.
Jim (trodel@gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]
--- Jim Trodel trodel@gmail.com wrote:
I enjoyed your essay (and you may be surprised that I agree with most of it). Unfortunately it addresses an argument that I am not making:
No, your question is a subset of the greater question I answered: Can NPOV and Censorship abide in the same body of work?
Thanks for saying you enjoyed it. I went over it twice to remove egregious typos. ;)
... The question remains:
Why is the compromise, i.e. "To not include the image inline but make it accessible by a link" not considered reasonable?
Because unless all photos are shown through links, the ones that are will be "flagged", essentially singled out as potentially offensive to a group or groups. Should the Jack Daniels logo be linked then, seeing as it might be quite offensive to a billion muslims? This will only reinforce the notion that wikipedia editors are biased. And that's Not Good for our NPOV aims.
... Hopefully if such children get access to wikipedia they will find out about child slavery and support organizations that want to help them them get out of bondage. And even more hopefully, wikipedia will be part of spreading knowledge (and the associated freedom that comes from acting on knowledge) in such a way that 11 and 12 your old prostitutes don't exist.
Are you saying it's bad that 11 and 12 year old prostitutes exist? The practice had been around for thousands of years, is alive and well today, and will most likely go on for quite some time. Are you inserting a personal value judgment? On this list, fine. Keep it out of the WP though.
I am not saying what my morality dictates. It is not relevent to the creating of the encyclopedia.
... And what of the mistrust that comes from looking up a topic you have heard of and are not quite sure what it means (although you can guess) and immediately seeing a very graphic image.
There is a link. [[Autofellatio]]. There. Happy?
Want more images? Google them.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
No, your question is a subset of the greater question I answered: Can NPOV and Censorship abide in the same body of work?
OK so the bigger issue is: Requiring some images to be a link IS in itself incompatible with NPOV?
I disagree - having different levels of availability but having all information available is NPOV in fact it shows respect to those cultures and is a better NPOV because wikipedia isn't pushing the "everyone should see everything" POV.
Why is the compromise, i.e. "To not include the image inline but make it accessible by a link" not considered reasonable?
Because unless all photos are shown through links, the ones that are will be "flagged", essentially singled out as potentially offensive to a group or groups. Should the Jack Daniels logo be linked then, seeing as it might be quite offensive to a billion muslims? This will only reinforce the notion that wikipedia editors are biased. And that's Not Good for our NPOV aims.
Why not - as has been stated - no information is lost - and is not that showing sensitivity towards other cultures - I don't see how having respect for certain cultures is pushing a point of view. If someone made that argument on the Jack Daniels page then I woul
Are you saying it's bad that 11 and 12 year old prostitutes exist? The practice had been around for thousands of years, is alive and well today, and will most likely go on for quite some time. Are you inserting a personal value judgment? On this list, fine. Keep it out of the WP though.
I am not saying what my morality dictates. It is not relevent to the creating of the encyclopedia.
Yep - I am saying that - and slavery and pre-teen prostitition are *BAD* and IMHO evil. And images of 11 and 12 year old prostitutes performing their services would be out of bounds on wikipedia. This is not pushing POV, this is being a human. And I am glad to see that [[Sex tourism]] includes a link on law enforcement targetting this practice.
There is a link. [[Autofellatio]]. There. Happy?
Exactly - and thanks though once is enough for me.
Jim (trodel@gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]
Christopher Mahan said:
Should the Jack Daniels logo be linked then, seeing as it might be quite offensive to a billion muslims?
Yes, the questions for NPOV of adopting an "offensive images" policy, while not insoluble, are not trivial. If we censor images, why not words that are offensive? Maybe we're not going to be available to a billion Chinese people (the fastest growing web population in the world, I believe) because some of the things we say offend quite a lot of them, particularly the ones who decide whether a cybercafe gets shut down. What do we do, cave in?
This is particularly touchy situation as we need to address the attitudes of the Chinese population as a whole, not those of the tiny minority which rules the country.
Fred
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:35:24 -0000 (GMT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie
Maybe we're not going to be available to a billion Chinese people (the fastest growing web population in the world, I believe) because some of the things we say offend quite a lot of them, particularly the ones who decide whether a cybercafe gets shut down. What do we do, cave in?
Fred Bauder said:
This is particularly touchy situation as we need to address the attitudes of the Chinese population as a whole, not those of the tiny minority which rules the country.
Sure, but if you don't satisfy the rulers you may not get through to the people. Same old quandary. Obviously Wikipedia provides an excellent model for a solution--someone with the approval of the Chinese government just takes selected Wikipedia content and filters it.
We are not in a position to stop government filtering, but we should nevertheless not violate mores held by the vast majority of the Chinese people. I can't say what those are, but we need to pay attention. It is clear to me that some of what we do does violate American mores. It is the young who consult encyclopedia and if what we do must be shielded from children then we are failing.
Fred
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:00:02 -0000 (GMT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Conforming to the Chinese Line, was The Censorship Lie
Fred Bauder said:
This is particularly touchy situation as we need to address the attitudes of the Chinese population as a whole, not those of the tiny minority which rules the country.
Sure, but if you don't satisfy the rulers you may not get through to the people. Same old quandary. Obviously Wikipedia provides an excellent model for a solution--someone with the approval of the Chinese government just takes selected Wikipedia content and filters it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder said:
We are not in a position to stop government filtering, but we should nevertheless not violate mores held by the vast majority of the Chinese people. I can't say what those are, but we need to pay attention. It is clear to me that some of what we do does violate American mores. It is the young who consult encyclopedia and if what we do must be shielded from children then we are failing.
You're very kind, but I'm not that young any more. :)
The above seems to be a recipe for a rather glum document. No miniskirts, no bikinis, no women's bare faces, no uncovered female hair. And that's just Islam and Judaism.
People from Saudi Arabia (or Brooklyn) come here and see all those things already, but even in Manhattan don't see anyone sucking their own cock (unless they go very far out of their way). There is a reasonable middle ground. A deliberate choice to not occupy that middle ground is to fail in our primary mission.
Fred
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:38:10 -0000 (GMT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Conforming to the Chinese Line, was The Censorship Lie
Fred Bauder said:
We are not in a position to stop government filtering, but we should nevertheless not violate mores held by the vast majority of the Chinese people. I can't say what those are, but we need to pay attention. It is clear to me that some of what we do does violate American mores. It is the young who consult encyclopedia and if what we do must be shielded from children then we are failing.
You're very kind, but I'm not that young any more. :)
The above seems to be a recipe for a rather glum document. No miniskirts, no bikinis, no women's bare faces, no uncovered female hair. And that's just Islam and Judaism.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder said:
People from Saudi Arabia (or Brooklyn) come here and see all those things already, but even in Manhattan don't see anyone sucking their own cock (unless they go very far out of their way). There is a reasonable middle ground. A deliberate choice to not occupy that middle ground is to fail in our primary mission.
I agree completely. Meet Mr Browser.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Fred Bauder said:
People from Saudi Arabia (or Brooklyn) come here and see all those things already, but even in Manhattan don't see anyone sucking their own cock (unless they go very far out of their way). There is a reasonable middle ground. A deliberate choice to not occupy that middle ground is to fail in our primary mission.
I agree completely. Meet Mr Browser.
Tell you what. Go get 75% of the internet population to use your extraordinarily non-fine-grained mechanism 100% of the time, and I'll drop my objection to inlining the image. Agreed?
Nicholas Knight said:
Tell you what. Go get 75% of the internet population to use your extraordinarily non-fine-grained mechanism 100% of the time, and I'll drop my objection to inlining the image. Agreed?
I don't want you to drop your objection. I'm more interested in whether solutions exist than whether people are prepared to accept that they exist and can be used.
geni wrote:
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else is missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
What information is lost if we don't include the image?
Well, the information the image provides would be lost, I suppose. However, generally people aren't suggesting we don't include the images at all, but merely include them as links, so it would seem to be impossible for any information to be lost---exactly the same information will be present, just navigable in a different manner. Sort of like how old-style books that had figure plates instead of inline figures (due to the printing methods used) did not have less information, merely information in a different order.
-Mark
Well, the information the image provides would be lost, I suppose. However, generally people aren't suggesting we don't include the images at all, but merely include them as links, so it would seem to be impossible for any information to be lost---exactly the same information will be present, just navigable in a different manner. Sort of like how old-style books that had figure plates instead of inline figures (due to the printing methods used) did not have less information, merely information in a different order.
What information does the immage provide that cannot already be found in the article?
Delirium said:
geni wrote:
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else is missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
What information is lost if we don't include the image?
Well, the information the image provides would be lost, I suppose. However, generally people aren't suggesting we don't include the images at all, but merely include them as links, so it would seem to be impossible for any information to be lost---exactly the same information will be present, just navigable in a different manner. Sort of like how old-style books that had figure plates instead of inline figures (due to the printing methods used) did not have less information, merely information in a different order.
I don't have a problem with this, as I've said, it's just that modern browsers provide much more elegant solutions. We should encourage our users to use these freely available tools to enhance their entire web experience. A Wikipedia endorsement of some of the better-designed open source tools would probably do wonders for the takeup of those tools and make our users' browsing experience (of the entire web) much more enjoyable and perhaps even more secure.
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else
is
missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
What information is lost if we don't include the image?
What information is lost in a surgery manual if the images are removed?
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Christopher Mahan a écrit:
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else
is
missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
What information is lost if we don't include the image?
What information is lost in a surgery manual if the images are removed?
Sorry, REAL information would be a movie.
As far as this picture is concerned, I am not exactly sure what the guy is doing... Maybe trying to lick a wound ?
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Christopher Mahan a �crit:
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what
else
is
missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
What information is lost if we don't include the image?
What information is lost in a surgery manual if the images are removed?
Sorry, REAL information would be a movie.
Yeah, and those exist. Movies are hard to include in a manual ;)
As far as this picture is concerned, I am not exactly sure what the guy is doing... Maybe trying to lick a wound ?
I noticed that too. He's not even good at it. Besides, like jimbo said, it's most likely copyvio.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Christopher Mahan said:
Besides, like jimbo said, it's most likely copyvio.
I wrote to the webmaster of a site that Cantus claimed was the copyright holder of the picture. No reply yet. Our user specifically licensed this one under GFDL and said he produced it; I see no reason to doubt that he is the photographer or the copyright holder. Do you?
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Christopher Mahan said:
Besides, like jimbo said, it's most likely copyvio.
I wrote to the webmaster of a site that Cantus claimed was the copyright holder of the picture. No reply yet. Our user specifically licensed this one under GFDL and said he produced it; I see no reason to doubt that he is the photographer or the copyright holder. Do you?
Yes, and you too, that's why you're checking.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Christopher Mahan said:
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
I wrote to the webmaster of a site that Cantus claimed was the copyright holder of the picture. No reply yet. Our user specifically licensed this one under GFDL and said he produced it; I see no reason to doubt that he is the photographer or the copyright holder. Do you?
Yes, and you too, that's why you're checking.
No. I'm doing due diligence because the person who claims that it's a copyvio didn't seem to be willing to take on that task for himself.
I wrote to the webmaster of a site that Cantus claimed was the copyright holder of the picture. No reply yet. Our user specifically licensed this one under GFDL and said he produced it; I see no reason to doubt that he is the photographer or the copyright holder. Do you?
The lack of edits by the uploader and thier uploading of a second questionable image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zak_spears_current.jpg
(yes I'm terminaly suspicious of everything)
-- geni
geni said:
I wrote to the webmaster of a site that Cantus claimed was the copyright holder of the picture. No reply yet. Our user specifically licensed this one under GFDL and said he produced it; I see no reason to doubt that he is the photographer or the copyright holder. Do you?
The lack of edits by the uploader and thier uploading of a second questionable image
Someone removed the fair use tag and replaced it with a possibly unfree tag. Fair enough, but that doesn't make it questionable. It's very clearly a publicity shot.
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else is
missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
What information is lost if we don't include the image?
What information is lost in a surgery manual if the images are removed?
The subject picture seemed to have body parts in the wrong place. It is conceivable in this instance that the possibility of autofellatio may have been possible as the product of surgical alteration. The information missing from the picture is the evidence of the surgery.
Ec
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:17:30 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else is
missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
What information is lost if we don't include the image?
What information is lost in a surgery manual if the images are removed?
The subject picture seemed to have body parts in the wrong place. It is conceivable in this instance that the possibility of autofellatio may have been possible as the product of surgical alteration. The information missing from the picture is the evidence of the surgery.
But not the manual.
geni (geniice@gmail.com) [050217 04:37]:
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else is missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
What information is lost if we don't include the image?
That it's actually possible. A line drawing really is not a substitute.
- d.
geni said:
If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else is missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
What information is lost if we don't include the image?
About 32 kilobytes of very graphic illustration.
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
A picture of a man fellating himself.
And what information do we gain from that?
-- geni
How many times do you need to hear the same answer? How many times do you need to ask the same question? Are you not reading the answers, or don't understand them, or have you fallen to the depths of trolling?
As has been repeatedly said to you, the information that we gain is evidence that the act can actually be performed.
RickK
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com
An encyclopedia is an exposition, a knowledge book, of mankind's experience on this planet. All subjects are by definition required.
All *encyclopedic* subjects. What I ate for lunch is also part of mankind's experience on this planet, but it should not be recorded in Wikipedia.
Jay.
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com
An encyclopedia is an exposition, a knowledge book, of mankind's experience on this planet. All subjects are by definition
required.
All *encyclopedic* subjects. What I ate for lunch is also part of mankind's experience on this planet, but it should not be recorded in Wikipedia.
What you ate for lunch is of little interest to anyone except maybe your health care provider, and then not much at that. But what 50,000,000 people ate for lunch would be very encyclopedic.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com --- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com
An encyclopedia is an exposition, a knowledge book, of mankind's experience on this planet. All subjects are by definition
required.
All *encyclopedic* subjects. What I ate for lunch is also part of mankind's experience on this planet, but it should not be recorded in Wikipedia.
What you ate for lunch is of little interest to anyone except maybe your health care provider, and then not much at that. But what 50,000,000 people ate for lunch would be very encyclopedic.
Are you proposing an article listing the specific lunch details of 50,000,000 individuals?
Many subjects are simply too trivial to be listed in an encylopedia.
Jay.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:14:49 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Are you proposing an article listing the specific lunch details of 50,000,000 individuals?
Can we get some feedback on this, please?
Skyring wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:14:49 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Are you proposing an article listing the specific lunch details of 50,000,000 individuals?
Can we get some feedback on this, please?
I really don't want to bring up my lunch. :-)
Ec
JAY JG said:
Are you proposing an article listing the specific lunch details of 50,000,000 individuals?
I'm pretty sure that an article about the specific lunch details of a mere 5,000 individuals would be considered encyclopedic. It is one of the events recorded in all four gospels, I believe.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:42:31 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com
An encyclopedia is an exposition, a knowledge book, of mankind's experience on this planet. All subjects are by definition required.
All *encyclopedic* subjects. What I ate for lunch is also part of mankind's experience on this planet, but it should not be recorded in Wikipedia.
Perhaps it should be a sub-section. Maybe with a pie chart. Colour plates.
Please, no bar graphs.
--- Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
... Please, no bar graphs.
This is a serious conversation. You are not allowed to make me laugh out loud. I'm at work for Pete's sake!
;)
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:10:12 -0800 (PST), Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
An encyclopedia is an exposition, a knowledge book, of mankind's experience on this planet. All subjects are by definition required. Leaving some out for a purpose means we will have failed at making a good encyclopedia.
When I was younger, my idea of a good encyclopaedia was Britannica or World Book. I'd go to World Book to look something up, get distracted by an article on the way and the next time I re-entered the real world several pleasant hours had passed.
But if World Book had had Wikipedia's [[Autofellatio]] article, my mother would have picked up the whole set and burnt it in the back yard. Thirty years later I'm a parent, and I know that my teenage kids and I would be more likely to laugh at such an image than anything else, but I still think such material has no place in a good encyclopaedia.
And guess what? If you look at what the general public regards as good encyclopaedias in this day and age, you'll see no Autofellatio, no Goatse, no terrorist beheadings. I suggest that the people who think that such material belongs in a good encyclopaedia are a tiny minority.
For my part, I think this sort of stuff devalues Wikipedia.
--- Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
For my part, I think this sort of stuff devalues Wikipedia.
Your opinion is taken into consideration.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Skyring said:
And guess what? If you look at what the general public regards as good encyclopaedias in this day and age, you'll see no Autofellatio, no Goatse, no terrorist beheadings. I suggest that the people who think that such material belongs in a good encyclopaedia are a tiny minority.
Evidently not, else they would be so massively outnumbered on Wikipedia that such articles would be a cinch for VfD.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:22:51 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
And guess what? If you look at what the general public regards as good encyclopaedias in this day and age, you'll see no Autofellatio, no Goatse, no terrorist beheadings. I suggest that the people who think that such material belongs in a good encyclopaedia are a tiny minority.
Evidently not, else they would be so massively outnumbered on Wikipedia that such articles would be a cinch for VfD.
Hmmm. Wikipedia as the real world. Even in microcosm it doesn't come close to being a true reflection. Most people in RL don't spend their days fooling around writing an encyclopaedia.
Skyring said:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:22:51 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
And guess what? If you look at what the general public regards as good encyclopaedias in this day and age, you'll see no Autofellatio, no Goatse, no terrorist beheadings. I suggest that the people who think that such material belongs in a good encyclopaedia are a tiny minority.
Evidently not, else they would be so massively outnumbered on Wikipedia that such articles would be a cinch for VfD.
Hmmm. Wikipedia as the real world. Even in microcosm it doesn't come close to being a true reflection. Most people in RL don't spend their days fooling around writing an encyclopaedia.
If those who want the beheadings and whatnot were a tiny minority that happened to be predisposed to gravitate to Wikipedia, then it would follow that Wikipedia would have more of this stuff than the rest of the internet. As far as I'm aware this is not the case.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:22:51 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
And guess what? If you look at what the general public regards as good encyclopaedias in this day and age, you'll see no Autofellatio, no Goatse, no terrorist beheadings. I suggest that the people who think that such material belongs in a good encyclopaedia are a tiny minority.
Evidently not, else they would be so massively outnumbered on Wikipedia that such articles would be a cinch for VfD.
That is quite an assumption. Perhaps some of us would prefer to forget about Wikipedia's seedy underbelly, have nothing to do with such articles (much less VfD them), avoid controversy and raising vocal objectors.
* For a start, it's only a minority who get involved in VfD in the first place.
* Secondly, it's only a minority who are the most "hard hitting" Wikipedians.
* Third, it's only a minority who are the most active Wikipedians.
* Fourth, editors are a minority on Wikipedia, and don't necessarily reflect the general public anyway (they reflect that section with Internet access, some free time (quite a lot for very active editors, or else less time spent doing other things), some decent level of education (certainly for many active editors))
I really think far too many people here are not in touch with reality, and ignoring the fact that their views (standing up for the freedom to have such images) are probably not shared by the majority of people - and furthermore, many (probably the majority of) people would be seriously put off Wikipedia by such images.
In all fairness, it is likely that in the world as a whole, the majority leans towards conservatism. Western liberalism/pro-anarchism is probably most definitely in the minority.
Who are we putting together an encyclopaedia for? Us or them? Are we just adding content to Wikipedia for our own gratification, and as such we wish content to be written as we desire it to be? But by and large people adhere to policy/guidelines (e.g. NPOV). That is why I would like to see some self-regulation on this issue. I do not think Wikipedians can be left to their own devices (as I've pointed out, we aren't left to our own devices. There are policies and guidelines for a reason. Without them, Wikipedia would be anarchy)
Zoney
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 11:09:16AM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
- The assumption that adults would not be offended by seeing this
photo inline is naive - just because I want to learn about something doesn't mean I want to see it performed (whether that be autofellatio or beheadings or whatever) - in fact IMHO wanting to learn about something by going to an encylopedia should imply that a scholarly or educational view of the subject is desired - for a Mass Media interpretation - one would just use google (or their favorite search engine). And if one really wanted to see it - use an image search.
Who is assuming that adults would not, or should not, be offended? I expect that adults will be offended by many things they see and read on Wikipedia. Thankfully, offense has never killed anyone, and mentally healthy human beings are capable of functioning reasonably happily whilst being aware that there exist many, many things in the world which offend them.
For what it's worth, I don't think this fuss is really about autofellatio, any more than it was about clitorises (clitorides?) when the fuss was over the article [[Clitoris]]. Badly-chosen images are easily replaced within the normal Wikipedia editing process, and the abuse of Wikipedia to troll with "shock-site" images is readily defeated within that process as well, as you can see in action on the talk page [[Talk:Goatse.cx]].
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.
- Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type.
I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may have wanted one).
In holding that students should have access (presumably via Wikipedia) to definitions and descriptions of fellatio, you've already placed this ideal of Wikipedia where it would be blocked by censorware and other processes that seek to "protect" children from "indecency".
The presence or absence of images would not, then, control whether Wikipedia were accessible to those students.
==QUESTION== Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a link" not considered a reasonable?
Offense is not a good criterion on which to judge whether material should be presented in an encyclopedia. If it were, we would be unable to cover adequately any number of subjects which offend people.
Luckily for the easily-offended, many of the images (and pieces of text) which they deem the most egregious examples of "offensive" content also fail good criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And, on those grounds, those materials already do get replaced or removed in the normal process of Wikipedia editing.
The current images on [[Clitoris]], for instance, seem to strike many people as "less offensive" than the ones which started the brouhaha there. However, the replacement was justifiable based on encyclopedic standards rather than solely on standards of offense which would have led to the eradication of any images there.
--- Jim Trodel trodel@gmail.com wrote:
The question is not one of Censorship but of Editorial Control and are the photos, etc helping us meet our mission - which is to become an trusted encyclopedic source of information.
Absolutely, this is not censorship.
Wikipedia image policy 'suggests' discussing objectionable images before adding. This wasn't done for the autofellatio image.
When someone wanted to delete the image they were asked to get a consensus for deletion. This was a mistake (IMO). And allowed a minority vote to keep the image.
Jimbo intervened and changed it. Now there is a vote on consensus to add or link, more in line with the existing policy (IMO).
Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Profanity policies seem to be working amazingly well, considering how simple, vague and open to interpretation they are.
Just because the community decides not to use an objectionable image doesn't mean we are censoring.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Puddl Duk said:
Wikipedia image policy 'suggests' discussing objectionable images before adding. This wasn't done for the autofellatio image.
The situation has changed since then; there really has been no successful move to get rid of that picture to date, to my surprise. It seems to me that unless Jimbo ups and deletes it (and you won't see any complaints from me if he does), the picture will be there in one form or another for a while. One solution to this might be that Jimbo himself lists it for deletion, because this might shift the stalement that has occurred on IfD each time it has been listed before.
--- Tony 'the [[Energizer Bunny]]' Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Puddl Duk said:
Wikipedia image policy 'suggests' discussing objectionable images before adding. This wasn't
done
for the autofellatio image.
The situation has changed since then; there really has been no successful move to get rid of that picture to date, to my surprise.
I guess I would intemperate this differently; there has been no successful move to _keep_ the image.
And I think the poll is flawed, the link option retains the image at wikipedia. This is wrong.
It seems to me that unless Jimbo ups and deletes it (and you won't see any complaints from me if he does), the picture will be there in one form or another for a while. One solution to this might be that Jimbo himself lists it for deletion, because this might shift the stalement that has occurred on IfD each time it has been listed before.
Good points, maybe after the in-line option is defeated the existing policy can be implemented to delete the image. Won't reflect the poll exactly, but the poll is flawed.
I would like to see this policy developed further, getting community consensus before adding objectionable material is good, and doesn't require censorship.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- Puddl Duk puddlduk@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Tony 'the [[Energizer Bunny]]' Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Puddl Duk said:
Wikipedia image policy 'suggests' discussing objectionable images before adding. This wasn't
done
for the autofellatio image.
The situation has changed since then; there really has been no successful move to get rid of that picture to date, to my surprise.
I guess I would intemperate this differently; there has been no successful move to _keep_ the image.
And I think the poll is flawed, the link option retains the image at wikipedia. This is wrong.
It seems to me that unless Jimbo ups and deletes it (and you
won't
see any complaints from me if he does), the picture will be there in one form or another for a while. One solution to this might be that Jimbo himself lists it for deletion, because this might shift the stalement that has occurred on IfD each time it has been listed before.
Good points, maybe after the in-line option is defeated the existing policy can be implemented to delete the image. Won't reflect the poll exactly, but the poll is flawed.
I would like to see this policy developed further, getting community consensus before adding objectionable material is good, and doesn't require censorship.
This policy should be applied to speedy deletes; when a troll gets a temporary account to upload his collection of porn, diapers, url stamped vibrator images, etc... and doesn't bother to seek community opinion on the matter, the images could be speeded.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Puddl Duk said:
--- Tony 'the [[Energizer Bunny]]' Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
The situation has changed since then; there really has been no successful move to get rid of that picture to date, to my surprise.
I guess I would intemperate this differently; there has been no successful move to _keep_ the image.
It has survived two attempts to delete it, so it follows that there have been two very successful attempts to keep it.
And I think the poll is flawed, the link option retains the image at wikipedia. This is wrong.
The image is still on Wikipedia so it makes sense to link to it there.
Puddl Duk said:
--- Tony 'the [[Energizer Bunny]]' Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
The situation has changed since then; there really has been no successful move to get rid of that picture to date, to my surprise.
I guess I would intemperate this differently; there has been no successful move to _keep_ the image.
It has survived two attempts to delete it, so it follows that there have been two very successful attempts to keep it.
And I think the poll is flawed, the link option retains the image at wikipedia. This is wrong.
The image is still on Wikipedia so it makes sense to link to it there. The poll was formulated after the results of the first VfD made it plain that there was at that time no consensus to delete.
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Puddl Duk said:
--- Tony 'the [[Energizer Bunny]]' Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
The situation has changed since then; there
really
has been no successful move to get rid of that picture to date, to my surprise.
I guess I would intemperate this differently;
there
has been no successful move to _keep_ the image.
It has survived two attempts to delete it, so it follows that there have been two very successful attempts to keep it.
'Very successful'??? I thought the majority vote was to delete. And the consensus should be whether to keep, not whether to delete. It makes a difference.
And I think the poll is flawed, the link option retains the image at wikipedia. This is wrong.
The image is still on Wikipedia so it makes sense to link to it there. The poll was formulated after the results of the first VfD made it plain that there was at that time no consensus to delete.
Resulting in the minority ruling to keep an objectionable image.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Puddl Duk said:
[...]
'Very successful'??? I thought the majority vote was to delete. And the consensus should be whether to keep, not whether to delete. It makes a difference.
Of course it makes a difference. With a strong minority, the picture easily survived VfD. It was very successful indeed. Surprisingly so, I thought.
I'm intrigued by the efforts to label this an issue of editorial control. That presumes an extremely narrow definition of the word censorship and seems wholly disingenuous to me.
Still no one has attempted a rational response to my question to Jimbo... What is it about a picture of a man performing autofellatio in an article about autofellatio that makes it "pornographic"?
At the end of the day this is about censoring images for the sake of the prudish and the squeamish, whether it be that of an individual, organisation or on behalf of a sub-culture.
We can debate until the cows come home but we're never going to reach agreement on the points as they're being argued because this isn't so much a debate about whether an image is appropriate or not but a debate about which world view will prevail on Wikipedia: one that attempts to self-censor on the grounds of prudery and squeamishness, or one that doesn't.
The beauty is we don't have to come to an agreement; many of us have been able to agree to a technical solution that skirts around the whole issue and leaves censorship up to the enduser. So why we're still debating instead of implementing the idea I'm not entirely sure.
Christiaan
Christiaan Briggs (christiaan@last-straw.net) [050217 20:25]:
The beauty is we don't have to come to an agreement; many of us have been able to agree to a technical solution that skirts around the whole issue and leaves censorship up to the enduser. So why we're still debating instead of implementing the idea I'm not entirely sure.
Because email is easier than coding ;-)
(I so need to learn enough PHP to hack Mediawiki.)
- d.
Well let's start a page of the meta where we can thrash the idea out and get some input from coders.
Christiaan
David Gerard wrote:
Christiaan Briggs:
The beauty is we don't have to come to an agreement; many of us have been able to agree to a technical solution that skirts around the whole issue and leaves censorship up to the enduser. So why we're still debating instead of implementing the idea I'm not entirely sure.
Because email is easier than coding ;-)
(I so need to learn enough PHP to hack Mediawiki.)
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. What would the default setting be?
-- ambi
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:06:48 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Well let's start a page of the meta where we can thrash the idea out and get some input from coders.
Christiaan
David Gerard wrote:
Christiaan Briggs:
The beauty is we don't have to come to an agreement; many of us have been able to agree to a technical solution that skirts around the whole issue and leaves censorship up to the enduser. So why we're still debating instead of implementing the idea I'm not entirely sure.
Because email is easier than coding ;-)
(I so need to learn enough PHP to hack Mediawiki.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
I'm intrigued by the efforts to label this an issue of editorial control. That presumes an extremely narrow definition of the word censorship and seems wholly disingenuous to me.
Still no one has attempted a rational response to my question to Jimbo... What is it about a picture of a man performing autofellatio in an article about autofellatio that makes it "pornographic"?
At the end of the day this is about censoring images for the sake of the prudish and the squeamish, whether it be that of an individual, organisation or on behalf of a sub-culture.
We can debate until the cows come home but we're never going to reach agreement on the points as they're being argued because this isn't so much a debate about whether an image is appropriate or not but a debate about which world view will prevail on Wikipedia: one that attempts to self-censor on the grounds of prudery and squeamishness, or one that doesn't.
The beauty is we don't have to come to an agreement; many of us have been able to agree to a technical solution that skirts around the whole issue and leaves censorship up to the enduser. So why we're still debating instead of implementing the idea I'm not entirely sure.
Christiaan
If you really want to look at it that way then every time you've reverted someone, or deleted a single letter in an edit, you have censored.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
On 17 Feb 2005, at 5:29 pm, Puddl Duk wrote:
If you really want to look at it that way then every time you've reverted someone, or deleted a single letter in an edit, you have censored.
Following this logic nothing could be considered censorship! Let's not play semantics here; censorship involves the removal or suppression of information on political or moral grounds. This is not our game. But yes, many edits could be seen as censorship and I would argue so. However this doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't justify institutionalised censorship.
Christiaan
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005, at 5:29 pm, Puddl Duk wrote:
If you really want to look at it that way then
every time you've
reverted someone, or deleted a single letter in an
edit, you have
censored.
Following this logic nothing could be considered censorship! Let's not play semantics here; censorship involves the removal or suppression of information on political or moral grounds. This is not our game. But yes, many edits could be seen as censorship and I would argue so. However this doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't justify institutionalised censorship.
Christiaan
Christiaan, you are the one who labeled this censorship. I disagree;
Censorship, in this context, is when rules or authority prohibit an image. And you have no say in the matter. Wikipedia doesn't do this (outside of illegal images).
Instead, we have an image policy that suggests discussion before adding an objectionable image. I guess you could label the winners of a vote to remove an image as censors, but I wouldn't.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
On 18 Feb 2005, at 2:58 am, Puddl Duk wrote:
Censorship, in this context, is when rules or authority prohibit an image. And you have no say in the matter. Wikipedia doesn't do this (outside of illegal images).
What do you mean in this context? Censorship has a meaning. You are simply describing one kind of censorship. You can't just define it for your own purposes. We would be actively participating in self-censorship if we were to link or remove this image on the grounds that it was explicit. Please can we stop kidding around that this would not constitute censorship.
Christiaan
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
On 18 Feb 2005, at 2:58 am, Puddl Duk wrote:
Censorship, in this context, is when rules or
authority prohibit an
image. And you have no say in the matter.
Wikipedia doesn't do this
(outside of illegal images).
What do you mean in this context? Censorship has a meaning. You are simply describing one kind of censorship. You can't just define it for your own purposes. We would be actively participating in self-censorship if we were to link or remove this image on the grounds that it was explicit. Please can we stop kidding around that this would not constitute censorship.
Christiaan
If you want to make this a black and white issue then 'please stop kidding around' and admit that every time you make a reversion you too are censoring.
And (repeating) the part you snipped and didn't reply to;
...Instead, we have an image policy that suggests discussion before adding an objectionable image. I guess you could label the winners of a vote to remove an image as censors, but I wouldn't...
The main point (in my mind) is that censorship is imposed on a community by power of authority, and the community has no say. Wikipedia image use policy doesn't do this, instead it asks for people's collective judgment.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
The main point (in my mind) is that censorship is
imposed on a
community by power of authority, and the community
has no say.
'In your mind' is exactly the point I was attempting to make. Who is the authority when self-censorship takes place?
Christiaan
Well, the point I was attempting to make was that when the community exercises it's judgment not to use an image, its not censorship.
Again, if you insist on such a narrow definition of censorship then admit that you too censor, every time you have ever reverted. Or are you going to keep side stepping this?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Puddl Duk wrote:
Well, the point I was attempting to make was that when the community exercises it's judgment not to use an image, its not censorship.
I know.
Again, if you insist on such a narrow definition of censorship then admit that you too censor, every time you have ever reverted. Or are you going to keep side stepping this?
I'm not insisting on a narrow definition. I don't deny that censorship can be of a type imposed by authority.
I've already responded to you directly on this: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019892.html You might like to read my last response to Jimbo also: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019933.html
Christiaan
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
Well, the point I was attempting to make was that
when the community
exercises it's judgment not to use an image, its
not censorship.
I know.
Again, if you insist on such a narrow definition
of censorship then
admit that you too censor, every time you have
ever reverted. Or are
you going to keep side stepping this?
I'm not insisting on a narrow definition. I don't deny that censorship can be of a type imposed by authority.
I've already responded to you directly on this:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019892.html
You might like to read my last response to Jimbo also:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019933.html
Christiaan
You are right, I missed your post to Jimbo, sorry.
I looked up censorship in three disctionaries, all definitions operated under power of authority to decide what 'others' may or may not say.
In this case, voting on whether or not to include an image, it is the 'others' who have the say. Thats why its not censorship.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Try looking up "self-censorship".
Christiaan
On 19 Feb 2005, at 12:55 am, Puddl Duk wrote:
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
Well, the point I was attempting to make was that
when the community
exercises it's judgment not to use an image, its
not censorship.
I know.
Again, if you insist on such a narrow definition
of censorship then
admit that you too censor, every time you have
ever reverted. Or are
you going to keep side stepping this?
I'm not insisting on a narrow definition. I don't deny that censorship can be of a type imposed by authority.
I've already responded to you directly on this:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019892.html
You might like to read my last response to Jimbo also:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019933.html
Christiaan
You are right, I missed your post to Jimbo, sorry.
I looked up censorship in three disctionaries, all definitions operated under power of authority to decide what 'others' may or may not say.
In this case, voting on whether or not to include an image, it is the 'others' who have the say. Thats why its not censorship.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Try looking up "self-censorship".
Christiaan
Yes, this word has a different definition than the one we were previously debating.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Then you might like to try following the discussion: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019893.html
On 19 Feb 2005, at 1:09 am, Puddl Duk wrote:
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Try looking up "self-censorship".
Christiaan
Yes, this word has a different definition than the one we were previously debating.
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Then you might like to try following the discussion:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019893.html
On 19 Feb 2005, at 1:09 am, Puddl Duk wrote:
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net
wrote:
Try looking up "self-censorship".
Christiaan
Yes, this word has a different definition than the
one we were
previously debating.
The fact remains, wikipedia is not censored. If you start losing the debate don't go and change the word we were debating, and then apply the previous debate to it. Start a new thread.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I'm sorry I didn't realise we were having a debating competition. You'll have to forgive me for appearing a little bemused, I've been using the word 'self-censorship' for our last half-dozen or so exchanges.
Christiaan
Puddl Duk wrote:
The fact remains, wikipedia is not censored. If you start losing the debate don't go and change the word we were debating, and then apply the previous debate to it. Start a new thread.
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
I'm sorry I didn't realise we were having a debating competition. You'll have to forgive me for appearing a little bemused, I've been using the word 'self-censorship' for our last half-dozen or so exchanges.
Christiaan
Puddl Duk wrote:
The fact remains, wikipedia is not censored. If
you start losing the
debate don't go and change the word we were
debating, and then apply
the previous debate to it. Start a new thread.
Ok, I accept your acknowledgment that the community exercising it's judgment on image use is not censorship.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Puddl Duk wrote:
Ok, I accept your acknowledgment that the community exercising it's judgment on image use is not censorship.
I didn't wrote this and I don't believe it. Last time I looked self-censorship is a type of censorship. I'm not all that interested in your games Puddl.
Christiaan
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
Ok, I accept your acknowledgment that the
community exercising it's
judgment on image use is not censorship.
I didn't wrote this and I don't believe it. Last time I looked self-censorship is a type of censorship. I'm not all that interested in your games Puddl.
Christiaan
I'm not playing games. Censorship and self-censorship are different words with different meanings. I strongly object to people slapping pejorative labels on any idea they don't support, and not acknowledging when they are wrong.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Puddl Duk said:
Censorship and self-censorship are different words with different meanings.
Up to a point. Self-censorship is an action that can be performed by a single person or by a community. When the community performs the censorship, the end effect is that the community acts as an external person censoring the behavior of the individual. Again I emphasize that I have no problem with the word censorship. Censorship is necessary, especially if we are to comply with the law. Every time someone deletes those diaper pictures, they're censoring Wikipedia, and rightly so.
Christiaan Briggs said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Censorship is necessary, especially if we are to comply with the law.
This is a good example. I have no problem with censorship in this regard, contrary to what some "pissed off" people will have you believe.
I figured as much. We should be honest about censorship. We do it and we should admit that we're doing it.
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Censorship is necessary, especially if we are to
comply with the law.
This is a good example. I have no problem with censorship in this regard, contrary to what some "pissed off" people will have you believe.
Christiaan
When did I ever 'have you believe' that you don't want to censor illegal material. I never said this. Don't put words in my mouth.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Puddl Duk wrote:
When did I ever 'have you believe' that you don't want to censor illegal material. I never said this. Don't put words in my mouth.
You said I was labeling the idea of censorship pejoratively. This exchange doesn't seem to be going anywhere, we should probably let it rest.
Christiaan
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
When did I ever 'have you believe' that you don't
want to censor
illegal material. I never said this. Don't put
words in my mouth.
You said I was labeling the idea of censorship pejoratively. This exchange doesn't seem to be going anywhere, we should probably let it rest.
Christiaan
Sure, just don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
When did I ever 'have you believe' that you don't
want to censor
illegal material. I never said this. Don't put
words in my mouth.
You said I was labeling the idea of censorship pejoratively. This exchange doesn't seem to be going anywhere, we should probably let it rest.
Christiaan
No, I said you were incorrectly using the term, for pejoratively purpose.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Puddl Duk said:
Censorship and self-censorship are different words with different meanings.
Up to a point. Self-censorship is an action that can be performed by a single person or by a community. When the community performs the censorship, the end effect is that the community acts as an external person censoring the behavior of the individual. Again I emphasize that I have no problem with the word censorship. Censorship is necessary, especially if we are to comply with the law. Every time someone deletes those diaper pictures, they're censoring Wikipedia, and rightly so.
I agree with neccisity for self-censorship, based on the communities judgement. But haven't seen the need yet for outright censorship.
The diaper pictures is a good example. There have been several recent new user accounts that dumped a load of objectionalble material and left. No desire to write an encyclopedia. We have no speedy delete policy for these cases. I think this would help.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
Ok, I accept your acknowledgment that the
community exercising it's
judgment on image use is not censorship.
I didn't wrote this and I don't believe it. Last time I looked self-censorship is a type of censorship. I'm not all that interested in your games Puddl.
Christiaan
Censorship has a nasty connotation, because it is imposed by power on a community and often goes hand-in-hand with abuse of power. This is exactly what's different between censorship and self-censorship. Using the word censorship incorrectly, as a pejorative label to discredit ideas they don't agree with, really pisses me off. Double that when the person doing it can't admit he's wrong.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Puddl Duk said:
The fact remains, wikipedia is not censored.
I don't think that's correct. The most obvious form of censorship practised is the avoidance of descriptive terms that carry an emotive payload. This is a good thing. If I encounter an article saying that a prisoner at Abu Ghraib was sodomized by a US Military Police guard, I am informed. If I encounter the same article but it says that the man was sodomized by a thug in American uniform, the informational content is roughly the same but there is an emotional overtone that would make me question the piece. Censorship is a necessary activity at all levels of production of an encyclopedia. No describing people as thugs in the articles, even if they act like thugs. That's censorship. I don't think there's anything wrong with censorship. We're censors.
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Puddl Duk said:
The fact remains, wikipedia is not censored.
I don't think that's correct. The most obvious form of censorship practised is the avoidance of descriptive terms that carry an emotive payload. This is a good thing. If I encounter an article saying that a prisoner at Abu Ghraib was sodomized by a US Military Police guard, I am informed. If I encounter the same article but it says that the man was sodomized by a thug in American uniform, the informational content is roughly the same but there is an emotional overtone that would make me question the piece. Censorship is a necessary activity at all levels of production of an encyclopedia. No describing people as thugs in the articles, even if they act like thugs. That's censorship. I don't think there's anything wrong with censorship. We're censors.
The definition of censorship has a componant of authority applying the censoring on a community. The community doesn't have a say.
Not the case in your example. Instead, the community exercises judgment for themselves. Thats why it isn't censorship.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Puddl Duk said:
The definition of censorship has a componant of authority applying the censoring on a community. The community doesn't have a say.
Even with that extremely tight definition, Wikipedia is censored. If Jimbo doesn't want certain content on Wikipedia, he can eliminate it. I have no problem with that at all--his ball, his game--but equally I have no problem with describing it as censorship. Good job our dictator is benevolent and wiser than most.
Puddl Duk said:
Well, the point I was attempting to make was that when the community exercises it's judgment not to use an image, its not censorship.
I'm not going to get involved in this, but I want to make two points:
1. What you describe above is clearly censorship 2. What's wrong with that?
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:25:16 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
I'm intrigued by the efforts to label this an issue of editorial control. That presumes an extremely narrow definition of the word censorship and seems wholly disingenuous to me.
Still no one has attempted a rational response to my question to Jimbo... What is it about a picture of a man performing autofellatio in an article about autofellatio that makes it "pornographic"?
Well, I'm not Jimbo, but I don't think he ever claimed it was pornographic. One doesn't even need to tackle the pornography question to realize it's a bad photo. Jimbo said that it was "unacceptable". "This photo is terrible."
It hurts the eyes on purely aesthetic and editorial grounds which have nothing to do with prudishness or censorship.
Editorially, this should make sense. As he said, it has high shock value, distracting readers from the article, but has low educational value. Furthermore, it's not clinical. It looks like porn, so it's not an NPOV document of the act, and Jimbo analogized it to the original clitoris image, which likely derived from porn and much less educational than our current and indisputably GDFL image.
And it is also objective to say that if the purpose of a photo is educational, then it should focus on the informational aspect rather than on sexually arousing (or shocking, or whatever) the viewer.
Finally, as he points out, it's almost certainly a copyright violation.
I believe appropriately illustrative photos of sex acts must have a place on wikipedia (presumably presented in such a way to avoid shocking viewers), but this photo is just plain bad for an encyclopedia.
As part of the discussion about the Autofellatio image Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
But, consider this restatement: Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen where annoying trolls can dump their porn photos without supervision?
Many other people have also objected to the image on the grounds that it is "pornographic'.
Christiaan
On 17 Feb 2005, at 11:18 pm, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:25:16 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
I'm intrigued by the efforts to label this an issue of editorial control. That presumes an extremely narrow definition of the word censorship and seems wholly disingenuous to me.
Still no one has attempted a rational response to my question to Jimbo... What is it about a picture of a man performing autofellatio in an article about autofellatio that makes it "pornographic"?
Well, I'm not Jimbo, but I don't think he ever claimed it was pornographic. One doesn't even need to tackle the pornography question to realize it's a bad photo. Jimbo said that it was "unacceptable". "This photo is terrible."
It hurts the eyes on purely aesthetic and editorial grounds which have nothing to do with prudishness or censorship.
Editorially, this should make sense. As he said, it has high shock value, distracting readers from the article, but has low educational value. Furthermore, it's not clinical. It looks like porn, so it's not an NPOV document of the act, and Jimbo analogized it to the original clitoris image, which likely derived from porn and much less educational than our current and indisputably GDFL image.
And it is also objective to say that if the purpose of a photo is educational, then it should focus on the informational aspect rather than on sexually arousing (or shocking, or whatever) the viewer.
Finally, as he points out, it's almost certainly a copyright violation.
I believe appropriately illustrative photos of sex acts must have a place on wikipedia (presumably presented in such a way to avoid shocking viewers), but this photo is just plain bad for an encyclopedia. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l