Gregory Maxwell a écrit:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:12:27 -0800 (PST), Anthere
<anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I think you are confusing censorship and
neutrality
I don't think I am...
Well, we might agree to disagree then :-)
If we were
claiming autofellatio is not possible, we would be incorrect.
Right, which is a reason why the image is useful.... It says that it
is possible in a manner which is difficult for text or drawings to do
alone.
You have a point here.
>If we were saying autofellatio is bad, we would be
non-neutral.
>If we were deleting the autofellatio article and pretending it does
not exist,
it would be censorship.
If we delete an informative part of the article because we think that
autofellatio is bad, or because we think that images of
nudity/sexuality are bad, it would be censorship *and* it would be
nonneutral because we are deciding content based on the same type of
value judgement you provided above.
At least, that is my position.
Na, you did not understand mine. I do not support its deletion due to
the act being bad, nor to nudity being bad. I think that it is a
delicate topic and we should be careful to limit rejection from readers.
The very vivid colors of the picture, the sweat, the bestial look, the
angle of pictures... all suggest porn. The picture is NOT pretty.
I think sensible topics could be much less problematic is treated in a
sensible manner.
Here is what I would suggest.
If you are still young enough and have a partner able to do decent
pictures, please propose your own picture. Select soft colors, a
pleasant angle of view, a neutral or just gently expecting look on your
own face, and let's talk about it again ? Okay ?
(I am serious).
>If we display a picture of autofellatio in the
autofellation article,
it is possibly displaying offensive content, or possibly
not.
>If we decide to use a drawing rather than the image
in the
autofellatio article, it is possibly admitting a taboo, or possibly not.
I think it's pretty obvious that some people are offended by the
image, for they think images of such things are bad just as some are
offended by the concept alone, and would like to see the whole thing
deleted.
This is not my position (no pun intended)
>If we display autofellatio image in user talk page,
it is hurting
people who do not expect to see such a picture on a talk page (while
they can choose not to go to the autofellatio)
>If we do nothing to help those who spent hours
cleaning up, it is
lacking respect for other people time. It is unwikilove.
Right, I don't argue for keeping it in talk pages....
Do you think that this isn't known to the people spamming the talk
pages with this image? There are many many more offensive images on
the internet, but they don't have a possible place on the wikipedia
because they are not informative about such a subject. It's quite
possible that the vandals motivate is to make a problem of the image
so that you will have it deleted because they are morally opposed to
it's availability.. And in that case, you are playing right into their
wishes.
Possibly. But my personal conviction this image was not okay for
wikipedia was not spawned by its use on talk page.
We must consider the matters of censorship and
vandalism as completely
separate matters, unless we wish to be forced to abandon our ideals
due to the agenda of anyone with a webbrowser and the time to
vandalize.
Agreed
Both neutrality
and censorship are "strong guidelines".
[snip guidelines examples]
This is very unfortunate you chose not to comment on the examples.
I think this is very relevant to the contrary. Most of you hardest core
supporters of non-censorship, an opinion I respect, do not comment on
where you would draw the hardline. I am sure you have a hardline just as
anybody else, but you just put it further than we do. It might be
informative to know where you put it. Classification of system to filter
content do not do any different. They try to define level of "violence
or sex" to define the different levels of filtering. If we admit that we
have a sort of line, we might just as well try to define where it is.
>As for all guidelines applications, only editors
have the authority
to try to set rules to attempt to follow the guidelines.
>
>On wikipedia, there is a strong desire to follow a couple of
mandatory
guidelines/principles, but there is an equally strong desire
to let editors create themselves their own rules to try to fit the
guidelines.
I contend that censorship is a matter of neutrality because it imposes
good/bad value judgements on articles.
What I'm reading here is that neutrality is negotiable.
I did not think this was the case.
Unfortunately, we can not easily modify a picture. This is a black and
white option.
...Though some attempts have been made on the clitoris picture. The best
solution is probably to provide a picture which might be more acceptable
by a larger set of body.
>I think accepting that cultures have different
taboos is right.
>
>Calling other communities rules and opinions, when differing from
yours,
"non-neutral" is wrong. This is what you are doing. The decision
of the english wikipedia is fine, but the rules applied on the english
wikipedia, belongs to the english wikipedia. They should not impair the
right of other communities to set their own rules, without those being
called censorship.
I'm having a problem getting over the cognative dissonance here.
Sorry, I do not understand that sentence.
People have differing views of what is right and
wrong, this is true
for people of the same culture or people of differing cultures.
Agreed.
When
we attempt to modify the article to fit our views and
exclude others,
this is non-neutral and this is censorship.
Well, I tried to exclude an image. You tried to exclude people. These
are different approaches. Telling people to fork is also a bit
censorship, don't you think ? I do not hope to start a fight in saying
this, but just to mention that it is very easy to talk about censorship,
but it has several faces.
Well, anyway, thanks for the more moderated tone, I appreciated. Hope I
do not offend you in this mail. Do not wish to.
For what it's worth, as best I can tell, the image
is quite offensive
to many people in the United States, ... This isn't a matter of it
being non-offensive to one group and not others.