> From: "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>
> For what it's worth, I don't think this fuss is really about
> autofellatio, any more than it was about clitorises (clitorides?) when
> the fuss was over the article [[Clitoris]]. ...
>
> Rather, the issue here seems to me to be whether Wikipedia needs some
> kind of rules under which people's work will be deleted or hidden away
> on the grounds of being "offensive". I hold that it does not; indeed,
> that such rules would harm the project. Existing ad-hoc practices work
> just fine for selecting the work that should be included, on the basis
> of accuracy, style, neutrality, copyright, and other such rules.
>
I agree - however, the argument here is being made that linking to a
image that is beyond the bounds is NPOV despite the voting and actions
by Jimbo.
> > 2) Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type.
> > I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at
> > my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the
> > word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them
> > at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may
> > have wanted one).
>
> In holding that students should have access (presumably via Wikipedia)
> to definitions and descriptions of fellatio, you've already placed this
> ideal of Wikipedia where it would be blocked by censorware and other
> processes that seek to "protect" children from "indecency".
>
I think if we are reasonable in the inclusion of images such that they
meet an stardard of providing educational or instructional information
- over time, such objectsions would be overcome, and wikipedia would
become an exception to such blocks - just as full volumes of
encylopedias are available at every school library even though they
contain articles on things labeled "indecent" and responsible parents,
like me (I have 4 children) would fight for the right of wikipedia to
be included in schools against those would ban it based on a few
articles (its value outweighing the risk). However, by including
images like those discussed here, I can't even make that argument to
myself.
> The presence or absence of images would not, then, control whether
> Wikipedia were accessible to those students.
I think it could - especially as censorware controls become more
finely tunable (if that is such a word).
> Offense is not a good criterion on which to judge whether material
> should be presented in an encyclopedia. If it were, we would be unable
> to cover adequately any number of subjects which offend people.
>
But offense to a great number of people is good critera for deciding
whether something could be included as a link or inline.
Images are much more powerful communicators than text. To include
graphic images that provide no educational or encyclopedic content and
would offend most people in the article without a link or warning
would be IMHO foolish. And to provide it through the link should
satisfy (but for some reason doesn't) those that want to claim
censorship and NPOV.
Jim
--
Jim (trodel(a)gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]
I'd like to put my reply to sannse's e-mail here.
That autofellatio image should go - and go immediately.
People have the right to go through this wikipedia without being confronted
with this kind of pornographic material without warning.
It's like you going down a street and having some idiot expose himself
to you without warning. Would you like that? How about your kids? Would you like them to see this kind of thing without warning or supervision?
I see nothing here inconsistent with freedom of expression. This kind of
exhibitionist behaviour is anarchy, NOT freedom.
Oh, and for the record and at the risk of raising the hackles of certain
wikipedians, I also remain very opposed to links to pornographic sites within wikipedia. Autofellatio also has this, as do certain other pages.
This tells minors where to go looking for such material and again, that's
not on. This is NOT a pornography website referral centre.
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
I don't see how technical reasons should drive the decision then if
the proposed compromise is reasonable - why not just let it stand that
way until the finer controls become available.
The accusation that those that feel such an image should not be inline
in the article are trying to create "bowdlerpedia" is just too much -
and is just as out of line as if I had accused those wanting to keep
the image in of trying to create pornopedia.
Discussing and deciding where the line should be is what will make
wikipedia a generally acceptable and accessible encylopdia.
Most encyclopedia's include images or topics that some may object to
but that is the nature of an encyclopedia but they will accept that is
the trade off with something that tries to cover everything. However,
at the very least - this autofellation images, and the goats image
should be out, and maybe other things should be out too.
The argument that nothing should be out will IMHO result in such bad
publicity that our mission will be frustrated.
Jim
> > ==QUESTION=Why is the compromise offered by those that find such
> > material offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it
> > accessible by a link" not considered a reasonable?
> >
> I don't know anyone who doesn't think it's reasonable. Inlining is far
> better, however, for technical reasons that I outlined earlier.
> Hopefully it will be generally possible in a not-too-distant future
> version of Wikipedia to let the user control what he sees using
> server-side controls instead of his browser controls; I do not expect this
> to appease those who seem to want a bowdlerpedia, however.
Jim (trodel(a)gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]
> From: "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:17:34PM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
> > "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu> wrote:
> > > Rather, the issue here seems to me to be whether Wikipedia needs some
> > > kind of rules under which people's work will be deleted or hidden away
> > > on the grounds of being "offensive". I hold that it does not; indeed,
> > > that such rules would harm the project. Existing ad-hoc practices work
> > > just fine for selecting the work that should be included, on the basis
> > > of accuracy, style, neutrality, copyright, and other such rules.
> >
> > I agree - however, the argument here is being made that linking to a
> > image that is beyond the bounds is NPOV despite the voting and actions
> > by Jimbo.
>
> Setting up "bounds" on the basis solely of offense is not NPOV and is
> not legitimate for Wikipedia. There are, however, perfectly good
> legitimate criteria which exclude some of the same images which also
> offend people.
>
> Note, for instance, that Jimbo did not defend his unlinking of the image
> on the basis of its offending people, and specifically disclaimed that
> motive: see [[Talk:Autofellatio#Raul's convo]].
>
> Here's another approach:
>
> The class of images I suspect more people are concerned about is not the
> class "offensive images", but rather the class "gratuitously offensive
> images". Most everyone recognizes that there is also a class of
> "informative images which also offend some people" -- for instance,
> internal organs, caterpillars, swastikas, hammer-and-sickles, Abu
> Ghraib, Jesus fish, etc., and that we must use these images in articles
> where they are relevant.
I agree in fact this is a much better description of what I meant
earlier - "gratitiously offensive image" - this would meet that
description - and although it does convey the meaning that it can be
done. Text in the article actually explains that it can be done with a
flexible enough person who is well endowed. There is no additional
information given by the image (unless one -from Missouri- says, I
don't believe the text, show me). In which case a link would suffice
for that person.
...
> Unfortunately, the state of the world today is that "offensive" text is
> much easier for automated systems such as censorware to recognize than
> "offensive" images. It is easier for a program to pattern-match the
> word "fellatio" than a picture of same.
>
Don't some censorware do their job based on a page by page analysis
rather than a entire domain block - if not - maybe I have a new
project to work on :)
...
> I'm not so sure. If the image is informative, then hiding it behind a
> link relegates it to a second-class status. It has, to me, connotations
> of sneakiness or dirtiness: "Heh-heh, do you *really* want to see?"
>
Or it could mean - "some find this objectionable, are you sure you
want to see it." which is what it does mean in this case.
> I believe this matter was extensively hashed out in the matter of the
> [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]] article, where presentation of
> a "censored" or "images suppressed" version of an article was rejected.
> The talk-page and VfD discussions surrounding that article cluster are
> informative.
>
I know - I lurked that discussion for sometime and still don't
understand why it was defeated. I, for one, would prefer to read the
article (especially as an editor without having to conciously ignore
the images - or block all images with my browser - as has been
suggested).
**It seems perfectly reasonable to provide alternatives to people
especially if the upkeep is non-existent or minimal.**
...
> If an image has no educational or encyclopedic content, then it doesn't
> belong on Wikipedia at all, regardless of whether it offends people.
Agreed - and I don't see the encyclopedic content of even the pencil drawing.
Jim (trodel(a)gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]
I just had to de-lurk to talk about this:
Some user named His Own Rectum (probably a neo-Nazi) pops up and starts
editing. Then an admin comes along, notes that the user is full of @#%
and that the username breaks a taboo so he ...
Wait for it....
...blocks His Own Rectum.
ROTFLMAO with tears in my eyes!
Uncle Ed
P.S. This really happened, check the logs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
I had this rewarding interchange with Professor Rubenstein:
Also, thank you for your explanation on Cultural Relativism -- now I see
that it was a misunderstanding and I am sorry I was curt. I responded to
you on the talk page and hope you will continue the conversation,
Slrubenstein </wiki/User:Slrubenstein> | Talk
</wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein> 22:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Steve had reverted one of my edits. (You know what a rarity that is, for
ME to get reverted; oh, the pain, the pain, as Dr. Smith used to say.)
My first impulse was to revert him right back, after all, I get up to
reverts per 24 hours, may as well use up my quota, eh?
But a sudden thought seized me: why not refuse to revert at all? Check
it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_relativism#Deletion_by_SLR
Instead of making an enemy, I solidified an old friendship. It's all
about team-building, folks.
Uncle Ed
--- Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think that to meet the need of many people, the media (photo,
> > whatever) itself needs to be tagged as potentially offensive,
and
> > replaced with an image indicating that the linked media is
deemed
> > offensive, but where such image is clickable to reach the
linked
> > image.
>
> If you're saying what I think you're saying, this could be quite
a
> workable solution. As long as offensive images don't appear
> instantly
> to the casual reader, I have no issue with their presence.
I hope you are hearing what I was trying to say.
Please somebody out there make a mockup of this image, the "Image
reported as offensive being investigated click here for more
information" image.
=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Is it better to leave your computer on 24/7 or shut it down when you won't be using it for a while?
Does the Spirit proceed from the Father or from the Father _and_ the Son?
Is it acceptible to split an infinitive?
Did Neil Armstrong say "That's one small step for man" or "That's one small step for _a_ man?"
Do you see a greater portion of your face in the mirror on a compact when you hold it further a way from you?
Should toilet paper be installed so the loose end hangs toward you or away from you?
Will a tray of ice cubes freeze faster if you fill it with cold water or hot water?
There, _that_ should clog up this list for a day or so.
An anonymous user posted the following on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy :
== Blocking anonymizer's proxies is unconstitutional ==
*'''The right to anonymous free speech is protected by the 1st
amendment of the US constitution.'''
*'''Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while
communicating--enables the expression of political ideas and the
practice of religious belief without fear of intimidation or public
retaliation.'''
:''Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.
Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express
critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny
of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill
of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect
unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an
intolerant society.''
:<small>Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,
1995.</small>
Some Wikipedia members (sysops) have implemented a policy to routinely
block users that choose to post using an anonymous proxy
([[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Anonymous_and_open_proxies]])
These members of Wikipedia have decided to block the ability of people
to the right of anonymity giving reasons related to the need to curb
vandalism of articles.
These are not sufficient reasons to limit my liberties and the
liberties of others. The WP community is strong enough to withstand
vandalism, without resorting to these measures.
Case in point: On February 9, [[User:David.Monniaux]] blocked IP
address 168.143.113.125 (anonymizer.com), a respected and paid service
for anonymous browsing. This IP address was used by hundreds of WP
users that wanted to protect their anonymity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=168.….
The steps taken by David Monniaux in blocking of that IP address have
been disputed by me.
([[Talk:French_legislation_against_cult_abuses#Controversy_with_an_anonymous_user]].
I kindly request Wikipedia editors to re-open the debate about the
right of the people to contribute to Wikipedia while protecting their
rights to free speech, and to curb sysop powers to utilize blocking
policies.
Copies of the above have been sent to:
* The Electronic Privacy Information Center http://epic.org/
* The Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
* The American Civil Liberties Union http://aclu.org/
--[[User:38.119.107.72|38.119.107.72]] 23:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)