Since I haven't seen it mentioned here, thought I would. Jimbo appears to have started another one of his trademark ill-thought-out unilateral decisions & purges on Commons, by deleting scads of images that offend him.
Relevant links:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content/Village_pump/2... - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content/Village_pump/2...
Over on Foundation-l there is an active discussion: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/thread.html#57789
Jimbo's explanation? bad press:
- http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057896.html
In related news, there is a proposal to remove the software privileges that lets Jimbo do that sort of thing:
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo's explanation? bad press:
In related news, there is a proposal to remove the software privileges that lets Jimbo do that sort of thing:
Hrm. Jimbo deletes hard-core porn, community responds by deleting Jimbo?
Steve
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo's explanation? bad press:
In related news, there is a proposal to remove the software privileges that lets Jimbo do that sort of thing:
Hrm. Jimbo deletes hard-core porn, community responds by deleting Jimbo?
If we're going to be unfair and inaccurate there are multiple ways of spinning it.
"Jimbo deletes works of art from the 1880s in an effort to appease FOX news reporters. Community complains about the unwelcome and ill-considered use of elevated privileges on a project where he's never been a real participant. Jimmy resigns said elevated privileges."
For what's it's worth, Jimbo has now limited the powers of the Founder flag.
Emily On May 9, 2010, at 7:58 PM, AGK wrote:
What a thoroughly unpleasant business.
AGK
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:58 AM, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
What a thoroughly unpleasant business.
There is now a BBC news story linked from their main news page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10104946.stm
Carcharoth
It's obvious some of Jimbo's idea is ill-considered. But what bothers me is the responses that this violates some kind of blanket policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we may not remove useful information for any reason. Wikipedia is not censored, we are not allowed to have exceptions.
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure out if some suggested exception to that policy is a good idea on the grounds that we don't do such things, ever. It's a triumph of rules lawyering over common sense. Of course, when questioned they will admit that exceptions are allowed, but their attitude to any proposed exception remains the same.
(And that's not related to whether this policy is a good idea. To use a less controversial example, BLP and privacy protections. You should see how some people resist any attempt to protect privacy on the grounds that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and that therefore nothing which makes it even a tiny bit less of an encyclopedia can ever be removed.)
On 10 May 2010 23:14, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure out if some suggested exception to that policy is a good idea on the grounds that we don't do such things, ever. It's a triumph of rules lawyering over common sense. Of course, when questioned they will admit that exceptions are allowed, but their attitude to any proposed exception remains the same.
I realise Wikipedia is a perpetual ever-refreshing Year Zero, but last time someone put together a series of options I do recall that they were resoundingly voted down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_censorship
Perhaps the time is ripe for another try. (I doubt it myself.)
- d.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:21 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2010 23:14, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure out if some suggested exception to that policy is a good idea on the grounds that we don't do such things, ever. It's a triumph of rules lawyering over common sense. Of course, when questioned they will admit that exceptions are allowed, but their attitude to any proposed exception remains the same.
I realise Wikipedia is a perpetual ever-refreshing Year Zero, but last time someone put together a series of options I do recall that they were resoundingly voted down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_censorship
Perhaps the time is ripe for another try. (I doubt it myself.)
The problem there is the name. If you call it censorship (which it isn't) then people oppose it. If you don't call it censorship, people will still wave the "not censored" banner. The idea of Wikipedia not being censored is one of the most widely misunderstood concepts, in my opinion, stemming from people having different ideas about what is censorship and what is editorial discretion and common sense and not indiscriminately allowing everything through the door (remembering we are talking about image uploads here). People have misappropriated the "censorship" label and applied it to the removal of anything they think should be kept.
My foray into this took place two years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_content_guidelines
I didn't push the proposal enough, and due to lack of activity it got marked historical. Anyone should feel free to attempt to resurrect it if they think it is a helpful start towards something useful.
See also the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_content_guidelines
And various subpages, such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_content_guidelines/sexual_...
There was even a Signpost story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-05-12/Pornogr...
This was *two* years ago, remember. Although it has come to a head again recently, this is nothing new.
That page was intended to be a centralised place to list heated discussions that arose from image use, as seen by the list produced here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_content_guidelines#Previou...
But unfortunately it never really got going. But the principle is still sound, I think.
Carcharoth
On 10 May 2010 23:39, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem there is the name. If you call it censorship (which it isn't) then people oppose it. If you don't call it censorship, people will still wave the "not censored" banner. The idea of Wikipedia not
See also the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_content_guidelines
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat "a very special sort of chicken," but people will see through that.
- d.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:49 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2010 23:39, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem there is the name. If you call it censorship (which it isn't) then people oppose it. If you don't call it censorship, people will still wave the "not censored" banner. The idea of Wikipedia not
See also the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_content_guidelines
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat "a very special sort of chicken," but people will see through that.
So you are saying anything labelled "content guidelines" will be called "censorship"? That's silly. You have to have limits when writing an encyclopedia, otherwise you just end up with a mess like the internet.
Carcharoth
On 10 May 2010 23:53, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the censorship stalking horse it was. You can tag a goat "a very special sort of chicken," but people will see through that.
So you are saying anything labelled "content guidelines" will be called "censorship"? That's silly. You have to have limits when writing an encyclopedia, otherwise you just end up with a mess like the internet.
No indeed, that's not what I said, it's a version you appear to have derived through an "all A is B therefore all B is A" fallacy. I was speaking of the example at hand.
- d.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:03 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2010 23:53, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the censorship stalking horse it was. You can tag a goat "a very special sort of chicken," but people will see through that.
So you are saying anything labelled "content guidelines" will be called "censorship"? That's silly. You have to have limits when writing an encyclopedia, otherwise you just end up with a mess like the internet.
No indeed, that's not what I said, it's a version you appear to have derived through an "all A is B therefore all B is A" fallacy. I was speaking of the example at hand.
OK. Would you like to try writing something that would be suitable for use as "image content guidelines", or at least being more specific about what you find objectionable about the wording of the text of what I proposed.
Or to put it another way, many websites have guidelines relating to the following:
* Explicit sexual content * Explicit medical content * Images of identifiable people * Images depicting death * Images depicting violence * Images depicting religious figures
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having explicit guidelines on such matters?
My position is that a single sentence ("Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article") is insufficient as guidance. The opposing position (which I assume is the one you take, but please correct me if I am wrong) is that anything stronger or more detailed or specific than that that would tip things over the line towards censorship?
Carcharoth
Actually, I should quote from the current page, not the one from 2 years ago!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IMAGE#Offensive_images
"Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is not censored. However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."
But this is actually veering off topic here.
The Commons issue, as far as I can make out, arose because there is a presumption that diversity of imagery is needed to enable people to select the images they need for the articles they are writing. To some extent that is true, and there is no harm in having 20 or more similar shots of a tourist landmark (and indeed, having day and night shots, and different picture compositions and angles, and shots in different seasons and for historical moments, is a vital part of photojournalism and photographic documentation).
But when it comes to the human body and physiological functions, it is possible (and in my opinion, better) to limit the number of images to the best pictures and those that *really* improve an article, rather than accept everything and hope the best rise to the top by a process of natural selection (= use in articles). i.e. Actually discuss which images to keep and which are not needed. And once you have enough of a certain class of images, then restrict further additions and require discussion before further additions take place (i.e. require the image to be uploaded somewhere else, and then discuss whether it is needed before uploading to Commons).
That is not censorship. That is a sensible editorial policy. Accept that some articles need illustrating by images that may cause offense, but discuss what images are needed, then go out and find them, and once they are found, move on to the next discussion, rather than allowing the continuing upload of similar images in an open-ended fashion.
It's the difference between maintaining a repository of images for anyone to look at and use (possibly for educational content, possibly not), and making a careful selection of some images (for educational use) and discarding the rest.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
But when it comes to the human body and physiological functions, it is possible (and in my opinion, better) to limit the number of images to the best pictures and those that *really* improve an article, rather than accept everything and hope the best rise to the top by a process of natural selection (= use in articles).
That is not censorship. That is a sensible editorial policy.
Exactly. Besides there is something qualitatively unencyclopedic about user-submitted photos of their genitals, or their private sexual practices - whatever - is that they are moreoften than not unprofessional in the sense that they are infused with a discernible exhibitionist intent rather than the professional agnostic sterile perspectives of actual medical professionals.
-Stevertigo
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
OK. Would you like to try writing something that would be suitable for use as "image content guidelines", or at least being
- Explicit sexual content
- Explicit medical content
- Images of identifiable people
- Images depicting death
- Images depicting violence
- Images depicting religious figures
There's a concept that many are missing here, namely that there is a concept of *gratuitous expressions (via various media) - a concept that most people are and in fact have been sensitive to - and which people at Commons deserve a lot of credit for exercising a degree of sensible moderation over the years.
Exhibitionism for its own sake has no place on Wikipedia. While I think you and others are right to raise the issue of cultural puritanicalism as something we should not support, that's not to say that everything in pornographic culture belongs in Free Culture. Is it the dissenting argument that Commons is no longer an island of Free Culture?
-Stevertigo
On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having explicit guidelines on such matters?
It's a gross NPOV violation.
My position is that a single sentence ("Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article") is insufficient as guidance. The opposing position (which I assume is the one you take, but please correct me if I am wrong) is that anything stronger or more detailed or specific than that that would tip things over the line towards censorship?
I'm certainly not saying "editorial judgement is evil."
- d.
On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having explicit guidelines on such matters?
It's a gross NPOV violation.
Or to put it another way, many websites have guidelines relating to the following:
* Explicit sexual content * Explicit medical content * Images of identifiable people * Images depicting death * Images depicting violence * Images depicting religious figures
And how would not permitting a caricature of Teresa of Avila being used to illustrate dildo use be a violation of NPOV?
Fred
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:08 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having explicit guidelines on such matters?
It's a gross NPOV violation.
I don't see it, David. An NPOV violation would be something like a rule against articles on sexual practices discussing whether or not they appear in the bible, or something. I don't really see how the absence of graphic images changes the neutrality of the content otherwise.
Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of librarians, teachers, etc etc.
Steve
On 11 May 2010 22:43, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of librarians, teachers, etc etc.
Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission, even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the way.
AGK
AGK, that was exactly my meaning in the email I have just sent to the list.
Emily On May 11, 2010, at 6:33 PM, AGK wrote:
On 11 May 2010 22:43, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of librarians, teachers, etc etc.
Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission, even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the way.
AGK
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/05/2010, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 22:43, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of librarians, teachers, etc etc.
Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission, even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the way.
According to the Guardian, the easily-upset people could perhaps include some of the sponsors of the Wikipedia, and Fox newspaper has been deliberately seeking them out, and trying to persuade them not to donate any more money:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/10/ipad-apple
AGK
Yikes! That could be quite problematic!
But still, fundamentally, we aren't here for the money. Clearly, people need to put their heads together and come up with a creative back up money making solution for the Wikimedia Foundation should this happen again.
Emily On May 12, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 12/05/2010, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 22:43, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of librarians, teachers, etc etc.
Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission, even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the way.
According to the Guardian, the easily-upset people could perhaps include some of the sponsors of the Wikipedia, and Fox newspaper has been deliberately seeking them out, and trying to persuade them not to donate any more money:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/10/ipad-apple
AGK
-- -Ian Woollard
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission, even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the way.
Notable here is this oft-repeated and rather weak-excuse-for-an-argument personal attack that characterises the opposition as just a bunch of "easily-upset people."
The Free Culture argument is a valid one, try using it. The "easily-upset people" meme doesn't do it justice, and just sends out the signal that the unnecessary is being angrily defended.
-SC
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:56 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Long-term, we're aiming to compile all knowledge into one freely-accessible location. We shouldn't infringe on that mission, even if we displease some easily-upset persons along the way.
Notable here is this oft-repeated and rather weak-excuse-for-an-argument personal attack that characterises the opposition as just a bunch of "easily-upset people."
The Free Culture argument is a valid one, try using it. The "easily-upset people" meme doesn't do it justice, and just sends out the signal that the unnecessary is being angrily defended.
I am not easily upset. Yet some material on the wikimedia projects is deeply upsetting to me.
We preserve these things because we have made, both implicitly and explicitly, a decision that the unadulterated flow of knowledge is essential to the advancement of mankind... That only through a comprehensive understanding derived from factual information can we, as individuals, promote the good things and prevent the bad things according to our own personal values and priorities.
Without this underlying agenda "the sum of human knowledge" would seem to be a worthless, even harmful, goal.
This decision is not at all neutral or universal. It may be currently fairly common in some cultures and social circles, but it's only recently that you could say that this kind of thinking was at all widespread. NPOV deals with the content of the projects, but not the basis for having the projects. Neutrality, free content, our preference for rationality... these things are very specific points of view and they are axiomatic to our operation and underlie everything we do.
It's okay to admit this, to claim otherwise would be dishonest. Any system must have some axioms, and it's important to know when the limitations you are encountering are due to the axioms.
Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of librarians, teachers, etc etc.
So, in other words, it's a good idea to have rules based on what people think of us. Perhaps you have other reasons for thinking that we shouldn't have graphic images on Wikipedia, but since this is only one that you have expressed, it's the only one I will respond to. I respectfully disagree. What John Q. Public thinks should only be a minor factor in Wikipedian policy, NOT the deciding factor.
Sometimes a graphic sexual or anatomical image is warranted for educational purposes. If anything, that would mean that teachers and librarians should trust us more (albeit sometimes secretly due to workplace politics or policies), since we aren't afraid to, for example, have an article about a famous, explicit painting, and to also have that painting in the article. Should the policies surrounding such images need to be clarified? Sure. But regardless of the chanting of "Think of the children!", we need to not ban such images entirely.
Emily
On May 11, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:08 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having explicit guidelines on such matters?
It's a gross NPOV violation.
I don't see it, David. An NPOV violation would be something like a rule against articles on sexual practices discussing whether or not they appear in the bible, or something. I don't really see how the absence of graphic images changes the neutrality of the content otherwise.
Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of librarians, teachers, etc etc.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of librarians, teachers, etc etc.
So, in other words, it's a good idea to have rules based on what people think of us. Perhaps you have other reasons for thinking that we shouldn't have graphic images on Wikipedia, but since this is only one that you have expressed, it's the only one I will respond to. I respectfully disagree. What John Q. Public thinks should only be a minor factor in Wikipedian policy, NOT the deciding factor.
Sure, but the opposite is also the case here. It is the uploads from John Q. Public showing their take on graphic imagery (user-supplied graphic imagery, remember, not professionally produced graphic imagery) that has caused much of the problems here. The distinction is between *anyone* being able to *edit* the encyclopedia and anyone being able to *produce* graphic content *potentially* for use in an encyclopedia. There is a difference there.
Normally, such graphic content is commissioned by experienced editors and produced professionally and carefully selected for inclusion or exclusion based on carefully considered factors (in the publishing industry, such pictures are referred to as "editorial use only"). What we have on Commons is the editorial community taking on the role of editor, and the wider public being encouraged to submit a range of images that will be looked at and selected for use in articles. Put simply, for graphic content, user-generated content with little or no restrictions may not be the best model.
Sometimes a graphic sexual or anatomical image is warranted for educational purposes. If anything, that would mean that teachers and librarians should trust us more (albeit sometimes secretly due to workplace politics or policies), since we aren't afraid to, for example, have an article about a famous, explicit painting, and to also have that painting in the article.
Yah. But don't forget that some pornography is art and some art is pornography. The two are not exclusive. There are some famous artists who have produced erotic imagery, but although their work is clearly art, it is also clearly pornography, especially when the art is removed from its context and collected together as a collection of images that can be browsed in a single category on Commons. If you want to illustrate that artist's style, *one* image would be enough. If you want to demonstrate the style of the book in which the artworks appeared, *one* image would be enough. To scan *all* the images and put them in a category on Commons is tantamount to re-publishing the book (as a work of pornography), rather than commenting in an encyclopedic manner on the artworks or the artist.
Should the policies surrounding such images need to be clarified? Sure. But regardless of the chanting of "Think of the children!", we need to not ban such images entirely.
It is not a choice between all the images or none, despite what those holding extreme positions on either side will say. The real choice, the difficult one, is to say "we absolutely need some of these images, but we don't need all of them". We, as a community (or rather, the Commons community), need to be mature and thoughtful enough to be able to exercise judgment and say "we will use these images for these reasons, and we will decide not to use these images for these reasons". As long as the reasoning is sound, and the attitude of "it might be educational, so it is OK" is replaced with one of "is this really needed and do we have something similar already?" and "is user-generated content appropriate for this topic, or should we be looking for content produced by professionals to professional standards?", then it should be possible to get the right answers here.
Carcharoth
On 05/11/2010 02:43 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good, because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of librarians, teachers, etc etc.
What level of graphic-ness do you have in mind? At least in the U.S., the level that we'd have to stay below to avoid controversy with regard to school libraries in particular is quite stringent: there are still routinely controversies over the photographs and illustrations in standard biology and even art textbooks.
I don't think it's the librarians themselves who are the problem, though; generally librarians have been at the forefront of opposing any censorship in libraries, and the pressure's come from outside forces that want libraries to impose requirements that they themselves don't want to impose.
-Mark
On Mon, 10 May 2010, David Gerard wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat "a very special sort of chicken," but people will see through that.
Well, it is a form of censorship, but just removing someone's private social security number is a form of censorship. The no censorship olicy isn't any mor eabsolute than any other policy, and never has been.
Heck, removing an image that's fair use under law but not under policy is a form of censorship.
Censorship is normally used to mean a refusal to include something on the basis of content, not on the basis of form or external characteristics. Not including a picture because it does not have a free license is not censorship, not including it because it's of poor quality is not censorship, not including it because of what it shows is censorship. NOT CENSORED means in the image context that there is no image that we reject because of what it portrays.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010, David Gerard wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat "a very special sort of chicken," but people will see through that.
Well, it is a form of censorship, but just removing someone's private social security number is a form of censorship. The no censorship olicy isn't any mor eabsolute than any other policy, and never has been.
Heck, removing an image that's fair use under law but not under policy is a form of censorship.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:08 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
NOT CENSORED means in the image context that there is no image that we reject because of what it portrays.
Yes, and that's the policy that needs to be done away with.
On Tue, 11 May 2010, David Goodman wrote:
Censorship is normally used to mean a refusal to include something on the basis of content, not on the basis of form or external characteristics. Not including a picture because it does not have a free license is not censorship, not including it because it's of poor quality is not censorship, not including it because of what it shows is censorship. NOT CENSORED means in the image context that there is no image that we reject because of what it portrays.
In that case removing private social security numbers or even dates of birth is still censorship. Removing the Brian Peppers page is censorship. Even removing illegal content is censorship.
The no censorship rule isn't, and never has been, an absolute 100% no exceptions rule. It's no different from any other rule in this regard.
On 11 May 2010 15:22, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
In that case removing private social security numbers or even dates of birth is still censorship. Removing the Brian Peppers page is censorship. Even removing illegal content is censorship. The no censorship rule isn't, and never has been, an absolute 100% no exceptions rule. It's no different from any other rule in this regard.
Well done, you've disproved the existence of the word "censorship". Or of the concept of editorial judgement. One or the other. I'm sure people will be convinced.
- d.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2010 15:22, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
In that case removing private social security numbers or even dates of
birth
is still censorship. Removing the Brian Peppers page is censorship.
Even
removing illegal content is censorship. The no censorship rule isn't, and never has been, an absolute 100% no exceptions rule. It's no different from any other rule in this regard.
Well done, you've disproved the existence of the word "censorship". Or of the concept of editorial judgement. One or the other. I'm sure people will be convinced.
I thought his point was to disprove the particular definition of "censorship" that David Goodman was using.
Of course censorship exists. And of course editorial judgement exists.
I'd say the key distinction is that censorship is something that is done by someone other than the authors. Although by that definition, it can't exist in Wikipedia, because everyone is an author.
I suppose "self-censorship" is done by the authors themselves, but still if that is to have a meaning outside of that of editorial judgement, then it must refer to omissions done due to the threat of outside censorship. In the context of Wikipedia, that basically means following the law, something which I think everyone agrees is necessary at least with regard to the most liberal laws available.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure out if some suggested exception to that policy is a good idea on the grounds that we don't do such things, ever. It's a triumph of rules lawyering over common sense. Of course, when questioned they will admit that exceptions are allowed, but their attitude to any proposed exception remains the same.
IMHO, this occurs because it's a lot easier for people to decide "does this follow the policy" than "is this a good idea". And eventually the policy gets elevated to some level of immutable axiom, rather than what it is — policy.
Steve