Tony Sidaway wrote: The statement that "we" already have this capability built into "our" browsers assumes some things about visitors to the site that are not necessarily true. For instance, w3mmee (if I recall correctly) is capable of rendering images and does not include any means of blocking images based on the likelihood of being offensive, even indirectly. Besides, anything less than a one-click method of blocking all images is unlikely to make blocking all images palatable to anyone using a graphical browser. As such, I think that addressing the matter from the server side is rather important, in the long run. -- Chad

Tony Sidaway wrote: And yet I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to browse an encyclopedia with images on and not run across disgusting crap that adds no value to the article whatsoever.

Tony Sidaway wrote: *points at [[Autofellatio]]*

Chad Perrin wrote: I see nothing wrong with an encyclopedia having a blanket policy that sexually explicit photographs not be displayed in articles. You can argue relativism, subjectiveness, and "censorship" all you want, we both know it's crap. We're here to provide an educational resource. Inlined explicit photographs of sex acts as a whole do little to educate that a line drawing wouldn't do, and only turn people off to Wikipedia as an educational resource. Crap like the autofellatio image is even worse.

Chad Perrin wrote: I'm the last person to be substantially influenced by cultural taboos. I just don't want to see a picture of a guy sucking himself off. _*How is the image useful*_? Can you give me a single example of a case where a PHOTOGRAPH of a sexual act is meaningfully more useful than a line drawing? It IS gratuitious. I never said anything was indecent. I said it was crap. Most people do not want to see photographs of explicit sex acts when browsing an encyclopedia. Given the lack of educational value such images have, I see no reason to drive those people, including me, off with such images.

Tony Sidaway wrote: If Wikipedia has to rely on photographs to say something is possible, a critical credibility problem exists. And even IF you're correct, that does not in any way require an inlined image.

Tony Sidaway wrote: I continue to see no usefulness in it, and the "why not" is because people _will not use wikipedia_, and quite likely, existing editors would leave. I certainly would if this became an accepted part of Wikipedia. It would be a final demonstration that the people here are not the least bit interested in constructing a useful educational resource, but seek only to shove a social agenda down other's throats.

Nicholas Knight wrote: Now you've really lost me. Who seeks "only to shove a social agenda down other's [sic] throats"? What social agenda do you mean? This isn't some kind of moral objection to the act of autofellatio, is it? -- Chad

Tony Sidaway wrote: While that was my first (and immediate) reaction, I decided to assume good faith and ask the question as I did. -- Chad

Nicholas Knight said: Who has advanced this argument for including the picture?

Nicholas Knight said: The autofellatio picture has survived one IfD round already and was showing every sign of surviving a second when someone overwrote it with a line drawing. In addition there is at least one other (fair use) autofellatio picture, uploaded by me, and this also has survived IfD. So images like the autofellatio one are already an accepted part of wikipedia.

Nicholas Knight wrote: The problem with your argument is that the opposite is also true. Christiaan

Nicholas Knight wrote: In that case, then, it seems you're just trying to enforce a personal preference. That's far worse, in my estimation. In any case, I have to wonder why you don't want to see it, but do want to read about it. I didn't say it was. I don't really know whether it's useful. I haven't made any particular judgment. Applying blanket policies like you seem to advocate, however, would certainly end up disqualifying a great many images that WOULD be "useful". Sure. What about a case where something graphically illustrative is needed, no line drawing is available to the person posting the article, and he or she either hasn't the skill to draw one or access to the technology to make it available online? Besides . . . I don't understand how a photograph is necessarily more offensive than a drawing. For one thing, it's often more difficult to accurately render informative or otherwise useful detail with a pencil than with a camera, and for another, a line drawing can be far clearer (and thus more evocative) than a photograph at times. I was speaking in the generic. Whether or not this particular image is gratuitous isn't something I'm going to argue right now. You made references to making policy, and that is what I addressed. Sheer, unadulterated opinion, then. That's not even a reasonable facsimile of the same possible usefulness of a philosophical statement about indecency. Most people don't want to have to exercise to stay in shape, either. That's hardly a relevant argument, unless you also think that "most people agree that redheads are better in bed" is justification for making statements to that effect in an encyclopedia. Your statements to the effect that there's nothing wrong with a blanket policy of blocking any and all sexually explicit photos indicate that by "such images" you mean "sexually explicit" images. Based on that, I can only assume you believe that there's no credible possibility of educational value in any "sexually explicit" image. That being the case, I have to disagree, but if you can't figure out why for yourself I don't think there's any point in trying to explain it to you. -- Chad

At 05:26 PM 2/13/2005 -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote: You _think_ it's crap. Others obviously think otherwise, or there'd be no ongoing debate. Perhaps you could provide a line drawing to substitute for it? Back when I first notice the poll on this thing before it had erupted onto the mailing list, someone suggested that the photograph was unacceptable but that we should find a piece of "artwork" to substitute, and I jokingly suggested running the photograph through Photoshop's brushstroke filter. Maybe an edge filter could turn it into a line drawing and actually be a way to resolve this. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

Nicholas Knight said: This attitude isn't going to impress people who disagree with you.

Chad Perrin wrote: On this list I've seen exactly one argument, and that rather half-hearted, as to why it's not crap. I'm of the impression, due to their own statements, that nobody here is thrilled with the image, and are simply labouring under some sort of impression that Wikipedia has some bizarre obligation to provide it.

Nicholas Knight wrote: Ah. That makes a little more sense. I think you're laboring under some sort of impression that many statements made here regarding the principle of the matter, and not applying some "blanket policy" (your words) because of this one photo, are in fact references to this particular incident specifically. In truth, I think many people here are referring to the principles behind the issue, and not the specific incident. I try to be clear about the point of division between the two, though I suppose I might have been misunderstood at times in that regard. -- Chad

Skyring said: Something of this kind cannot be avoided except by banning *all* sexually explicit images--something I've seen seriously advanced. We have to make up our minds what we want to do, build an encyclopedia or sit around on talk shows being patted on the back for producing something "safe".

Skyring wrote: Nail on the head. Christiaan

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:20:45 -0800 (PST), Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I would say that images which would not normally be found in school encyclopaedias or museums such as the Smithsonian would be a good rule of thumb, and I'm not just talking about sexual images. I was in the Holocaust Museum in Washington a few weeks back and although schoolchildren are welcomed and encouraged to attend, certain exhibitions had warnings posted at the entrance. And rightly so. I don't think there is any hard and fast guide as to what exactly makes an image offensive, disturbing or explicit, but I think that the Wikipedia community could be trusted to find a consensus on a case by case basis. My feeling is that the Autofellatio photograph would be generally agreed as being one that should not be generally accessible to schoolchildren. I use schoolchildren as an example, not because I want to emasculate or prudify Wikipedia to the level that it offends nobody, but because schoolchildren are prime users of information resources such as Wikipedia, and the last thing we should do is to make it difficult for them to use Wikipedia. I know that some people here think that individula users should accept all responsibility, but many teachers and parents don't see it that way. I was engaged in discussion in another forum, and someone brought up an example of the Wikipedia article on the Nile River. An innocuous article, one might imagine, but it so happened that at the time my correspondent was opening it up for the benefit of a schoolchild it had recently been vandalised and consisted of nothing but obscenities. I can't see any way of getting around this sort of thing in the current state of Wikipedia, because inappropriate text or images could be inserted without warning - possibly by mischevious schoolchildren - and it might take some time before the situation is noticed and corrected. Maybe we should be thinking about having default material that is known to be in a useful and "safe" state and that the "live" material can only be accessed by specifically setting some flag or clicking on an accept button or some similar mechanism. -- Peter in Canberra

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:45:29AM +1100, Skyring wrote: The Smithsonian, of course, is the work of the U.S. government, which has all manner of politically-driven standards it must follow. This is not a problem we have. I was in the National Museum of the American Indian a few months ago. I was surprised by how -little- there was about the bloodier and more unpleasant parts of the history. I don't know if that's because the museum operators chose to exhibit mostly "friendly" or "politically correct" bits, or because people with a well-deserved grudge didn't care to participate in creating the museum. Or maybe I somehow missed the wing with the smallpox blankets and the Trail of Tears. My opinion is that the Autofellatio photograph is not a very good image for an encyclopedia ... *not* because it depicts a man licking his penis, but because it is stylistically poor and unfitting. Likewise, my opinion is that the Goatse.cx image is not fitting for Wikipedia because displaying it is far too close to *participating* in the trolling-behavior with which that image is so closely linked. Schoolchildren don't much enter into it. I'm guessing that by saying that we would "make it difficult for school- children to use Wikipedia" you mean that by depicting sexuality frankly we would tickle the sensors of [[censorware]] programs, causing Wikipedia to be blocked. Sadly, there are many fools in the world, and fools appear to be the chief market for censorware. Both the flaws and the deliberate biases of popular censorware products have been more than adequately demonstrated. We are talking about software which already regularly blocks educational material on breast cancer and HIV/AIDS; which has been found to selectively block pro-choice (abortion-rights) sites but not pro-life (anti-abortion) sites; and which in one case has blocked TIME Magazine's Web site when TIME criticized censorware. (See http://www.peacefire.org/info/blocking-software-faq.html.) I don't see any way Wikipedia can benefit from kowtowing to that kind of nonsense. If Wikipedia is blocked by censorware, so much the worse for censorware; it will be one more illustration of its uselessness and one more charge to be brought against its use. This sounds to me like you're comparing people who upload controversial images with people who vandalize Wikipedia. That doesn't seem to me like a very productive comparison to make. Wikipedia's job is to describe the world, and the world is "live" and not "safe", too. -- Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>

Skyring said: This is going to happen anyway. We have an article on Donkey Punch and one on Dirty Sanchez, and those alone, unillustrated, are enough to take Wikipedia well out of the realm of the child-safe. If we can agree that there will be a demand for a child-safe fork of Wikipedia, let us start formulate the policies and mechanisms that will enable us build it in tandem with the main one. There's no need for us to bowdlerize our main fork if all we need do is produce a child-safe website containing filtered content on those subject that would be of interest to K12.

Skyring said: That will happen and it's only a matter of time. Okay, I know this sounds like Chicken Licken, but I think it's inevitable. If schools and parents like Wikipedia's content we should provide it, but not in raw Wiki form. Then when the good reverend fulminates against Wikipedia's editing engine we can just turn around and say that's just the workfloor, not the version schoolkids see. We come clean, we admit that a full-blown Wiki is not a suitable environment for teaching and it's no place to leave your kids unattended. It should be possible to scan Wikipedia for about 5000 articles that would be useful to K12, choose a reasonably stable version and check it for suitability. Remove sections if necessary. Then store that in a MediaWiki running with editing turned off and you have the start of a school Wikipedia. We could rely on the pride of individual editors to perform the task of reviewing and copy-editing their own copies of candidate articles in userspace and submitting for the school wiki. Use an appointed standards committee of trusted editors to vet the content.

Skyring said: Absolutely none. I do think the product should be separated from the process, where it comes to dealing with the sensibilities of this particular specialized audience. I don't personally think should be in the K12 business at all; we should leave all the effort to some organization with experience in educational publishing.

Tony Sidaway wrote: I strongly disagree. This is the web, yes, but there are quite a number of people who just want to be able to browse and read about sexual topics without being exposed to outrageous photographs "in your face". There is minimal harm done in linking or having a tiny thumbnail linking to the larger image. Appropriate encyclopedic images should be kept, but should not be thrust in our readers' faces. It's just plain common sense. It's the same reason we don't directly link to Goatse; we err on the side of caution. The same applies here. I prefer linking, actually, because it's only one click away for those who want to view it. It's five clicks on the other hand for those who don't want to view it. Assuming the two groups are equal, the decision is common sense. There's a dimension I feel everyone in this debate has been missing. It doesn't matter that the image is harmless or that a thumbnail hurts nobody or that censorship is wrong or that most of us aren't really offended. What matters is what our readers think. Like it or not, our readers are still squeemish about these things. It doesn't matter that four billion people won't be offended by these images if the other two billion are the only ones who have access to Wikipedia and a substantial number of them are offended. These people will not like it, even if it's just a tiny thumbnail. They have no good reason; all they know is they don't like it. And until the other four billion gain access to Wikipedia or the two billion stop being "prudes", we have to live with it. Without editors, Wikipedia is nothing. Without readers, Wikipedia is nothing. We, editors, cannot impose our opinions on the readers. And a substantial amount of our readers are offended by inline images of a man sucking his dick. It's simple as that. It doesn't matter *why* they're offended; nothing we say can change their minds. They'll just leave, with probably a bad thing or two to say the next time they hear the word "Wikipedia". Remember, our image is integral as well. No matter how we try to convince people, the damage has been done if we allow seriously offensive images to be displayed inline. For most people who can read Wikipedia, it's just too much to take. They don't care; they don't want the image shoved in their face or their kids' face or anyone's face. Whether they have a good reason or not, it doesn't matter. We cannot and should not persuade them to change their opinion. I think this dispute marks a critical turning point in our history - will the readers' or editors' interests triumph? It's interesting here, because the editors are under no obligation to continue work, and there is substantial overlap between readers and editors. Our case is unique, and the only reason the editors' interests have held out so long is because until now, most readers have also been editors. That is no longer the case. Wikipedia is reaching for a broader audience everyday, and we must cater to this audience which is considerably more conservative and technology-averse than our traditional editors. This image dispute is not the only example of readers versus editors; just look at the efforts to move editor-only templates to the talk pages. Until recently, the interests of most editors and most readers overlapped. This is no longer the case, and we can no longer assume people will understand how or why Wikipedia works, nor can we assume they will make an effort to do so. We now have to respond to consumers' needs appropriately, and how well we do this will be a significant indicator of Wikipedia's viability. John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:42:50PM +0800, John Lee wrote: There are, likewise, quite a number of people who want to read about medical topics without being exposed to photographs of internal organs "in your face". There are probably people who want to read about [[anti-Semitism]] without being exposed to photographs of Ku Klux Klansmen and Nazi propaganda "in your face". On the other hand, there are people who want to hit the "Random page" button and not get a biography of a porn star like [[Andrea Spinks]] or a frank and accurate description of the [[Kama Sutra]], even if it doesn't have any nekkid pixx0r. And there are others who are quite severely offended by the fact that the text of our articles [[Jesus]] or [[Mohammed]] or [[homeopathy]] doesn't parrot their precise view of these. The idea that sexual topics, or sexually accurate images, are *uniquely* risky or likely to offend is not particularly close to being accurate. There is no bright-line distinction between "offense" and "POV", since so many people are offended by seeing or reading about things or views whose existence they object to. If we would seek the approval of Mrs. Grundy or her pastor Rev. Bookburner, simply submitting to their views about images will not suffice. We would need to submit to their views about our text, too ... because it really isn't dirty images they want to destroy, but rather dirty thoughts and the dirty people who think them. Well ... actually ... we *do* link to [[Goatse.cx]], or rather, to a number of mirrors of that site, since it is no longer up. We don't have the image inline. I, for one, am much more offended by trolling -- that is, the deliberate disruption of a worthwhile discourse -- than I am by pictures of penises or anuses. Everyone has an anus, and about half of us have penises. I'm squeamish about anything that reeks of censorship, myself. It makes me feel all icky and dirty inside to recall that there are so very many human beings who would like to put me in jail (or worse) because I rather enjoy a great number of things that they disapprove of. Plenty of people already have bad things to say about Wikipedia without the nekkid pixx0r, too. We're an arm of the atheist Zionist capitalist anti-American Marxist evolutionist American-centric libertarian Democrat conspiracy against the white race -- you've got to expect we'll take some heat. Linking to them, rather than keeping them inline, does precious little to defuse the wrath of the self-righteous. Instead of being an archive of Satan's favorite images, we then become a Web directory of Satan's favorite images. I disagree. In order to continue Wikipedia's success we need to keep doing what has worked so far. Trying to reach out to the censorious by dropping the nekkid pixx0r is a waste of time. They *don't care* if we have nekkid pixx0r or not; our evil is obvious in that we don't parrot their party line about whatever hot-button issue they fuss about. It seems to me to be rather destructive to the discourse to pretend that your views on images or templates are the side of "the readers" and that those who disagree with you are, therefore, against "the readers". -- Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:12:32 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: This problem is easily solved by producing Stikipedia.org as a static site drawn from Wikipedia but containing "sticky" articles that are the "last good state". If an article is edited, those articles need to be recertified in some fashion. Images (or potentially offensive text) could also be subject to special handling - maybe you have to register as an adult to see it or click on a warning button or something. That way schools and parents could block Wikipedia with its graphic images, disturbing text, edit wars and vandalism, but depend upon Stikipedia. And, frankly, I'm not really sure I want millions of schoolchildren having edit access to Wikipedia, showing off by replacing an article on Constitutional History of the United States with "Billy is a poo poo head". Most kids wouldn't dream of doing this, but there's always one... In fact, as I understand it, a third party could do this today. Register a site name, grab hold of the contents of Wikipedia, and put it all up for public consumption as a static site. -- Peter in Canberra

Christiaan Briggs said: I suspect this is just going to make for more tag wars, tag vandalism and the like. No pictures until the user actually reads, and admits he has read, the content disclaimer. Give him a cookie (and make sure it will expire after the session if he's on a public machine). Casual readers will still get the text but they don't risk coming face to face with Mr Goatsex, Mr Autofellatio, Mr Guy About To Be Shot Dead and Mr Guy Whose Head is being Hacked Off. No need to grade the pictures. They should be chosen according to the nature of the article.

Delirium said: Here's a good one my girlfriend showed me the other day. Just a geometrical arrangement. WARNING: any indecency you see here is purely in your head. http://img32.exs.cx/img32/4306/mouse5fo.jpg It really doesn't take long to click a "show me pictures" button, agree not to blame Wikipedia if you see something you find unpleasant, and then get on with your life. And it isn't as if our editors need to see pictures in order to edit the pages.

Delirium said: Yes, we must get it right. But there are no intrinsically unpleasant images, just ones that are useful in an article and ones that are not. I've already explained why I think autofellatio is an excellent case of an article that needs a photographic illustration. We should be able to display that illustration without apologising, and it really would help if people would learn how to operate their web browsers.

Nicholas Knight said: Could you explain why you used the word "crap" in the above explanation of why you don't want to use your browser controls? Do you consider five mouseclicks to be more or less pleasant than viewing something you, personally, have assessed as "crap"?

Nicholas Knight said: It's a few clicks and it gives you better control over your browsing experience than would insisting that every web page you visit should conform to your taste.

Nicholas Knight said: You will encounter similar problem at other sites. The simple technical solution I suggest will work with all of them.

Nicholas Knight wrote: Let me guess, you secretly frequent solosuck.com ;)

Tony Sidaway wrote: The solution you suggest is inconvenient and impractical, and can be avoided simply by not inlining the image. What's so bad about being polite to users?

Christiaan Briggs wrote: 1) You could see the image by clicking a clearly marked link. 2) We're deciding what it is best to present people with _by default_.

Christiaan Briggs wrote: You're not the least bit glad someone had the courtesy to consider that you might not want to see the image, and gave you a choice? Which I have no problem with, but we have no solution implemented.

Christiaan Briggs wrote: I understand it, what I don't understand is why you feel sufficiently strongly about it to feel offended. The solution has been "created" already. It has not been implemented, which will require someone with PHP skills. You may have them. I do not.

Christiaan Briggs wrote: The situations are not even comparable. Linking to an image gives a user a clear, visible, and easily made choice. Presenting a user with a canned news broadcast with no other options does not give a user a choice. Linking to the image IS a solution, it's just not the best one we can reasonably come up with. Tag controversial images, preferably into a couple categories (nudity, blood/gore, could probably think of one or two other good ones). Let the user set a preference for their defaults (maybe give them a toggle they can hit at will while browsing to turn all on/off), and then let them easily select single controversial images to display. There are several options for the last part, Javascript being the easiest, and it can be combined with a server-side mechanism for those that have disabled or lack Javascript support. Absent strange coding in the affected areas of MediaWiki, none of this should be particularly difficult to implement for someone with the neccessary skills. (Before someone starts complaining about determining what's controversial, I don't think we're going to have any trouble figuring it out. Just wait for the firestorm; controversial images will essentially prove themselves.)

Neil Harris wrote: I'd vote "controversial images on" as the default, for exactly that reason. -- Chad

Tony Sidaway wrote: Great! If we have both Nicholas and Tony in agreement on this, we have the beginnings of a consensus. Possibly we need different tags for {{artistic nudity}} and {{hardcore porn}}, and we can argue on the nuances that lie inbetween? Let's develop some tag classes, and then get tagging! Then we can worry about what we do with the tag information later. -- Neil

And what default do you use for non-logged-in Users? Don't allow them to see any images with tags until they log in? That's discriminatory. RickK Nicholas Knight <nknight(a)runawaynet.com> wrote: Tag controversial images, preferably into a couple categories (nudity, blood/gore, could probably think of one or two other good ones). Let the user set a preference for their defaults (maybe give them a toggle they can hit at will while browsing to turn all on/off), and then let them easily select single controversial images to display. There are several options for the last part, Javascript being the easiest, and it can be combined with a server-side mechanism for those that have disabled or lack Javascript support. Absent strange coding in the affected areas of MediaWiki, none of this should be particularly difficult to implement for someone with the neccessary skills. (Before someone starts complaining about determining what's controversial, I don't think we're going to have any trouble figuring it out. Just wait for the firestorm; controversial images will essentially prove themselves.) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On 15 Feb 2005, at 11:08 am, Nicholas Knight wrote: Unfortunately you're talking past me. It appears you're not that interested in knowing why I feel sufficiently strongly about it but would rather attempt to invalidate my point of view. Again, you're still talking past me. Linking to the image takes away my choice to read articles without having hidden content. It would not be a solution, it would be a problem. I thought by "created" you meant someone had already written the code. Anyway, at least we can agree to a solution. So maybe we should start a page somewhere to nut this idea out. Christiaan

John Lee wrote: It's psychological, but it's not an assumption of safety. Many people are going to be far more comfortable reading a description -- even detailed -- of a sexual act than seeing a photograph of it. I've been looking at this as a debate on presentation, not content.

John Lee said: I still think you're grossly mischaracterizing the inline option. Inlining does not force the browser to download the image, or to display it even if it does. The browser issues a HTTP GET and obtains the HTML of a page and renders that page. This may or may not involve the browser issuing more HTTP GETs in order to obtain the binary of the images referred to in IMG tags embedded in the HTML. It's entirely under the control of the browser and thus, subject to browser design and selection, under the control of the user. So users *already* have the option of downloading only those images that they want to see. In the worst case they can run lynx in a cmd window (Windows) or xterm (MacOS, BSD, Linux). In addition, users can control their stylesheets (either by the on-site override or using their browser controls) and use this to suppress image display. You may say "until", I say that what you propose is available to our users *now*. "Oh but it's too complicated", I hear you say. "Our users are Moms and Dads, not geeks." Well people will say precisely the same thing when you have your on-site image controls. Even a straightforward "reload without images" button on the top nav will be too complicated for some people; as for selecting whether they want to see objectionable images or not, it will have to be hidden away in some page in special: and it will be every bit as hideous as anything in the much maligned Internet Exploder. What's more, its behavior will change over time, probably at a fairly rapid rate as category hierarchies are changed and the feature evolves.

geni said: Gosh. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. You know there is objectionable material on Wikipedia because, of course, you have read the content disclaimer linked from every page. Being adverse to seeing nasty stuff, you click the button on your browser that turns images on or off whenever you think you're likely to meet something you won't like (the only internal links to [[Autofellatio]], for instance, are pretty clearly labeled as to its sexual nature). You click it again whenever you want. Meanwhile if you see the text from the alt tag of an image you can read it and then right mouse button and load that image if you want. This is precisely the procedure I use if I am browsing in an area of Wikipedia that is likely to trigger my rather virulent phobia. It works a treat.

geni said: Then your objections are not my problem. The web is not a playpen.

Nicholas Knight said: That is what inlining does. Linking reduces the control of the user over his browsing experience.

Nicholas Knight said: The precise arrangements depend on the browser design. I believe the experience you describe pertained to some of the earlier browsers, such as NCSA Mosaic. Good modern browsers allow a lot of fine control.

Nicholas Knight said: I also use the current production version of Firefox, and for me switching images on and off is a single mouseclick or a single shortcut key. It may be that you are not making the best use of your browser's available controls.

John Lee said: Seems a little specific. A bit like "until you can hit that target while facing the other way, blindfold while whistling Dixie".

John Lee said: Not really. Browser operation requires no technical skills beyond the ability to use a mouse.

John Lee said: There are people who have problems programming the timer on their video recorders. This doesn't mean that the broadcasters must make arrangements on behalf of those people.

Matt R (matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk) [050216 00:51]: I plan to get mine a Mac Mini as absolutely soon as is feasible. "Tell him to get an iMac. It's a computer for stu-- for mommies and daddies." - d.

Tony Sidaway wrote: You're not everyone. Inlining the image removes no less control from the user.

Tony Sidaway wrote: So that's the issue, apparently. I think I've figured this out (I think somebody else already suggested before, but I don't know who or where): The link will be a Javascript link that changes the display: CSS value of the image in the document from "none" to the value permitting it to be shown. Another option would be to provide two stylesheets for the document; one displaying images marked as potentially offensive, and another hiding them. The hiding one would be default unless otherwise set by the user. The problem is the latter choice probably won't work with IE while the former won't work with most text-only browsers, *really* old browsers and users who have intentionally disabled Javascript. We have two choices: If the user doesn't have Javascript, the link goes directly to the image as it does now. Or... the link will link to the display.phtml page we usually see for special pages (i.e. contributions, but it's basically the script that does the job of displaying almost all pages, the short URLs being a facade) with a GET argument telling the server "display all images, regardless of their having been marked offensive or not". This will require more work on the code, but it will really solve all the problems without having to be institution or user specific. And we can still give users the choice of viewing all pages with offensive image hiding off. All solutions will require some additions to Wikimarkup (it's either that or force people to resort to external link syntax). But still, I really prefer them to user- or group-specific censoring. I never liked that; it's too icky for me, with a lot of margin for error. I haven't seen how such a system would work. John Lee ([[Iser:Johnleemk]])

I agree, we could deal with this far more effectively with MediaWiki. Christiaan On 15 Feb 2005, at 7:43 am, John Lee wrote:

Tony Sidaway wrote: I have to say, this is one of the more ridiculous things you've said in this thread. Why do you want so badly to make people accept a picture of a guy sucking his own penis right along with a picture of Earth?

Christiaan Briggs wrote: Wow, you've completely failed to read virtually every message I've written, haven't you? I've said repeatedly this is about *inlining*. Go ahead and link to the image, I don't care about that. I care about it being inlined in the article.

Christiaan Briggs wrote: Unfortunately, instead of compromising, a vote was resorted to, which killed any chance at compromise. This is an object lesson in why votes should be used rarely if ever to decide things on Wikipedia.

The thing is Nicholas, you're argument that you shouldn't have to jump through hoops to not see the image is just as valid for those who wish not to jump through hoops to see the image. And you're the one wanting to change what was the status quo, so I don't see how this is a lesson on why votes should be rarely used. In fact the situation might help direct some energy at finding a technical solution. Christiaan Nicholas Knight wrote:

Nicholas Knight said: Incorrect. I wondered how long it would survive. I am glad that I conducted the experiment; it appears that inlining controversial images is much more viable than I had previously believed.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:04:30 -0500, Chad Perrin <perrin(a)apotheon.com> wrote: I don't understand. How does it run both ways? Theresa

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:35:55 -0500, Chad Perrin <perrin(a)apotheon.com> wrote: Autofellatio isn't that common a word. One might reasonably expect poorly-informed car lovers to wind up there, though I suspect they wouldn't be disappointed on arrival. -- Peter in Canberra

sannse wrote: Intentionally misinterpreting my point is hardly a valid argument. -- Chad

sannse wrote: You don't seem to get what I was driving at: the argument runs BOTH WAYS. -- Chad

Nicholas Knight (nknight(a)runawaynet.com) [050215 16:55]: You appear not to be talking about the image that was there, but about some visual version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Funniest_Joke_in_the_World rather than the actual photo. Please try to be a little less hyperbolic. - d.

Skyring said: There is no way to stop them doing that except to have extremely strict control of all sexual topics on Wikipedia.If you have a strong stomach look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch That article has been on Wikipedia since July. No illustration is necessary, the description of the act alone would tell most parents that Wikipedia is not child-safe. For this reason I think the argument for appeasement is a bust. We're making an encyclopedia and we should make decisions on an article-by-article basis. Does this article serve a useful purpose? Does this illustration improve the article's usefulness to someone who wants to know about the topic? Does this link provide relevant information at an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio?

Rick wrote: I object to said image, but not the text at [[Fuck]].

sannse said: I don't think that's a problem. Where it becomes a problem is that users are unwilling to learn how to operate their browsers so they want Wikipedia to provide links to *all* users instead of the inlines they expect. Illustrations aren't essential, of course. But they're very useful, adding immediacy and impact, color and life to the pages of an encyclopedia. It may be that some of the pictures aren't to everybody's taste (I cannot safely look at a picture of a caterpillar, for instance, without risking waking nightmares) but it surely doesn't merit making everybody's browsing experience more clunky, when a few clicks of the mouse is all that the reader (speaking from experience) needs to do.

Tony Sidaway wrote: My goal in life, believe it or not, has nothing to do with impressing people that disagree with me.

Bryan Derksen wrote: Last I checked, it had already been "resolved" by getting replaced with a line-drawing, actually. We're mostly just arguing the principle at this point, I think, though I suppose the original photo might eventually be replaced on the page. -- Chad

Nicholas Knight wrote: This is an opinion based on emotion. Other people have a different opinion. Christiaan

Incerdently how many people saw this (the link contains the image in question) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Recentchanges&oldid… -- geni

Skyring wrote: Uh, look at the URL a little closer. Geni is pointing out that someone put that image up on the Recentchanges page.

At 05:32 PM 2/13/2005 -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote: Is there anyone (aside from the vandal that first put it there) advocating that a photograph of autofellatio adds to the value of the recentchanges page? I'm not sure what the point of mentioning this is, otherwise. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

Tony Sidaway wrote: That wasn't "digging pretty deep": it was speaking from experience. I've had occasion to use w3mmee, even as my primary browser under certain circumstances (now thankfully behind me). The point still stands, though -- some people don't have the options you seemed to assume were universal. I both agree and disagree with that. I agree that users should be taking it up with the browser designers, rather than the content providers, but I also believe that, in absence of specific reasons to do otherwise, content providers should perhaps address the matter as well. In particular, I think it's an idea that should be addressed by Wikipedia, because of the goals pursued by the Wikipedia endeavor (both in theory and in practice). Making a universally accessible encycolpedia implies making an encyclopedia that strives to be as close to universally palatable as is practicable, as well, without betraying the needs of encyclopedic quality. -- Chad

Tony Sidaway wrote: Good deal. I'm glad to hear it (both your agreement and your intent to work on the matter). I may even someday get around to familiarizing myself enough with the Wikipedia code to do stuff like that as well, but it won't happen in the immediate, forseeable future. Good luck with that. -- Chad