[Wikipedia-l] Re: censorship

[Anthere]

Gregory Maxwell a écrit:
 > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:12:27 -0800 (PST), Anthere 
<anthere9 at 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.