-> Ed Poor wrote: -> -> >If we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt, then we have -> >a standard. All I'm saying is: let's refine and enshrine our standards. -> -> Do we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt? -> We have standards on not violating copyright and on vandalising; -> either of these alone is sufficient for those specific cases. -> I personally wouldn't want to enshrine an additional standard. -> -> -> -- Toby
Don't we have a standard? There isn't a single instance of a link to the goatse image other than on the article about it. Every time it has appeared, people have given it a good swift kick in the, er, I mean deleted the link as soon as possible. It's the single most common entry in "vandalism in progress".
Then someone decided to remove the ability of ANYONE to make in-line links to external images. I noticed that when the "mediator" cartoon gracing my user page disappeared.
Oh, we have a standard all right. We're debating whether it should be "official" or what.
Ed Poor
Ed Poor wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Do we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt? We have standards on not violating copyright and on vandalising; either of these alone is sufficient for those specific cases. I personally wouldn't want to enshrine an additional standard.
Don't we have a standard?
We have standards, but I'm not aware of any about goatse as such.
There isn't a single instance of a link to the goatse image other than on the article about it.
I can't think of anywhere else that such a link would be relevant. We have a standard against inclusion of irrelevant links, and we had it before goatse ever appeared.
Every time it has appeared, people have given it a good swift kick in the, er, I mean deleted the link as soon as possible. It's the single most common entry in "vandalism in progress".
Every time it has appeared has been, in fact, a case of vandalism. It's also presumably been a copyright infringement. We have standards against vandalism and copyright infringement, and we had them before goatse ever appeared.
Then someone decided to remove the ability of ANYONE to make in-line links to external images. I noticed that when the "mediator" cartoon gracing my user page disappeared.
This change was suggested in the wake of one goatse vandalism spree, yes, but I (and many others) supported it for quite different reasons, all (IIRC) of which have been mentioned to you in others' responses by now. So we have a standard against directly linking external images, for those reasons.
Oh, we have a standard all right. We're debating whether it should be "official" or what.
I don't think that it's much of a surprise that ordinary standards would lead to a situation where goatse has a difficult time legitimately appearing in about any form at about any place on Wikipedia. It really is true that that image is hardly appropriate for Wikipedia; that follows from general principles, not as a special case. This isn't a conspiracy of hypocritcal standards designed to banish that image without admitting that we're doing so. So there's no reason to create an explicit standard against it, and I'd certainly oppose such a thing.
-- Toby
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:11:30AM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
Every time it has appeared has been, in fact, a case of vandalism. It's also presumably been a copyright infringement. We have standards against vandalism and copyright infringement, and we had them before goatse ever appeared.
So what you're saying is that if somebody created an article [[goatse.cx]] or somesuch, with an encyclopeadic writeup, and got permission from the copyright owner, then that would be fine by you?
I'm not specifically raising any objection to that, just trying to be clear.
So what you're saying is that if somebody created an article [[goatse.cx]] or somesuch, with an encyclopeadic writeup, and got permission from the copyright owner, then that would be fine by you?
There is already a goatse.cx article, without the image. I think the description of the image is more than enough, furthermore, posting material that can be classified as pornography can get us into legal trouble. To pick a somewhat less offensive example than goatse.cx, say we wanted to illustrate articles about porn movies -- sooner or later someone is probably going to write them. I don't think we could legally complement these articles with pornographic screen captures, even if we wanted to.
If Jimbo wants to take the risk, however, I'm all for it.
Regards,
Erik
Jason Williams wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Every time it has appeared has been, in fact, a case of vandalism. It's also presumably been a copyright infringement. We have standards against vandalism and copyright infringement, and we had them before goatse ever appeared.
So what you're saying is that if somebody created an article [[goatse.cx]] or somesuch, with an encyclopeadic writeup, and got permission from the copyright owner, then that would be fine by you?
(Note that everything except the copyright permission is already on [[en:]].) Yes, that would be fine by me, although I know that others would object. If the group decided not to allow the now permitted and relevant image, still that would require discussion; we don't have that standard now.
I'm not specifically raising any objection to that, just trying to be clear.
Clear?
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org