--- Arno M <redgum46(a)lycos.com> wrote:
> Kevin, you have my full sympathy. I'm still only
> semi-returned after a making a similar decision
> about having a wiki-vacation last year.
>
> You've hit the nail exactly on the head when you
> wrote "We exist to be an encyclopedia
> not a bastion of freedom of speech. We are here to
> provide information NOT to make political statements
> about censorship."
>
> Unfortunately, there are far too many individuals
> here who seem to think otherwise, and this is very
> disruptive.
Why is it that those of us who believe that this *is*
information are the ones who are being disruptive?
We're not the ones running around demanding things
HAVE TO GO. We're the ones saying, let's keep valid
information. (Gawd, who would ever have thought that
I'd ever be a rabid inclusionist?).
> That picture should definitely go. It is not the
> explicit stuff that the autofellatio picture was,
> buit its purpose is still to shock in the name of
> freedom of speech more than to inform.
Codswallop. It's an image illustrating an article
about a movie, taken from the movie.
> Whatever happened to that bowderliasing project that
> was promised in the wake of the autofellatio
> picture? That seems to have dioed a quiet death.
Who promised any such thing?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I don't think this definitively settles anything one way or the other,
but I don't find Tony Sidaway's argument that linking (rather than
inlining) problematic images takes choice away from the user. I think
there are much more compelling arguments which illustrate the opposite.
Tony suggests that users can browse with *all* images turned off and
simply click to view them. He apparently concedes that with Firefox,
you have to download an extension to make this easy. But even with
this, users who come to Wikipedia for the first time (and each
subsequent time) have to think: gee, I'm going to a serious encyclopedia
project, so I might see a photo of someone engaging in autofellatio so I
had better turn off all images just in case.
This is forcing the user to go through a lot of hoops, and it is
forbidding to them the very simple and obvious choice that most people
want to make, which is to just surf the web in a simple and unplanned
way and not be too astonished by the result.
On the other hand, putting such images behind a link doesn't appear to
affect anyone's choice negatively at all, except in the very very rare
case where it is somehow important to be able to read the description of
the controversial image side-by-side with viewing the image itself. For
such cases, it seems to me quite easy for someone to open two browser
windows or... frankly, I just think it doesn't ever come up
realistically in the first place.
And linking _very conveniently_ acknowledges that for a great many
users, having the choice to simply click or not can be very very useful.
Now this is not to say that there aren't other arguments against linking
and in favor of inlining this sort of image. But I don't think this
argument that somehow linking is taking away choices is very compelling.
It seems clear to me that the opposite is true: linking gives people
the choice to view the image or not, in the simplest and most effective
way possible, without requiring the to know in advance that there might
be shocking images, without requiring them to change browser settings, etc.
- --Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCYvaDPmU5MGI9SZcRAsT1AJ9sUjSdY5pDXlVmqyhLgyZa1z1zGACfWwML
uLDKAi4HmO4s3ZFPOIynBYs=
=inOp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Results for the March International writing contest are out:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_writing_contest
There were many great English submissions, and even though en: entered
the contest on very short notice, some of our submissions ranked up
there with the best articles in any language. The top six articles,
each worthy of a long read :
1. Apollo 8 (Evil Monkey) [the clear winner, even before audio
files were added]
2. Reformation in Switzerland (Lupo)
3. Spring Heeled Jack (Shauri)
4. Kreutz Sungrazers (Worldtraveller)
5. Oakland Cemetery (uberpenguin)
6. Automatic number plate recognition (violetriga)
Honorable mention goes to [[Diamond]], which underwent an incredible
transformation over the course of the month, and will probably be
featured by the end of the week. It was also the most collaborative
effort submitted to the contest, worked on actively by Bantman, Jasper
and Hadal. However, despite seeing every paragraph and section
change, it was already a long and well-sourced article when the month
began.
Congratulations to everyone who worked on these articles.
There will be another writing and media contest in May, for materials
created primarily after April 30; hopefully with some good prizes in
the mix. We are already seeing some innovative video contributions,
and I hope there will be some good entries next month (if you haven't
already, take a peek at this quick clip of Wikinews TV :
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Broadcast ).
If you are interested in judging either the writing or the media
submissions; or if you would like to donate a prize for one of these
contests, please leave a note on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Contests .
(NB: Both the English Wikinews writing contest and the German entries
for this past International writing contest have attracted a few
hundred dollars in prizes... )
--
+sj+
_ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
Someone should tell kids.net.au that they are breaking our licensing
agreement since they don't supply any history and don't link to us,
the original article, or the license...
On 4/18/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Or they can claim they do, like kids.net.au, and not actually do much work
> in that direction!
>
>
> - d.
--
Michael Becker
Right, I hate McDonalds and wish they'd go bankrupt (not likely).
However, the McDonalds website does provide (at least the US version)
"nutrition" information as well as other information. The website isn't
the company's primary commodity, that's all I'm saying. I'm pretty sure
we're agreeing on this one.
-Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces(a)Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:06 PM
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Cc: Kevin Rector
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
> Kevin Rector said:
> > Yeah, to be clear, I'm making no comment on the "goodness" or
"badness"
> > of the article it's content or anything at all to do with the
article
> > in question, but the topic of linking to "commercial" sites.
>
> How about the external link to mcdonalds.com on [[McDonalds
Corporation]]
> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcdonalds_Corporation )? I popped on
over
> there, selected my country (UK), and was promptly shown lots of happy
> smily kids stuffing themselves with junk food, and all kinds of
propaganda
> saying how healthy their revolting, fat-filled crap is. I hope they
get
> taken big one day by all the fat people whom they have made ill with
their
> targetted advertising and false claims, but somehow it would seem
wrong to
> me if the article about this company didn't contain a link to their
crappy
> website.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> I think we've been
> going around in circles for a while now. To summaries, we
> differ strongly about whether Ms Winslet's mammary glands are
> so horrific that the world needs to be protected from them.
"Horrible", as in the [[horror movie]] genre, would be something like
Nightmare on Elm Street, Freddie Kreuger, etc. Grisly action scenes of
impaling, beheadings, etc. There is nothing horrible about a camera
revolving around a half-nekkid broad draped on a couch while intervening
stage props repeatedly reveal and conceal her tits.
Horrid is when a man wakes up one day and realizing you have no family
life, because you focused too much on sex (i.e., with someone other than
his wife).
The problem with movie nude scenes is not that they "offend" or are
"horrible"; don't bother wasting our time as you knock down THOSE straw
men, with the easy grace of an outfielder catching a pop fly. It's that
they ENTICE.
If your friend or co-worker was on a diet (perhaps for medical reasons),
how often would you amuse yourself by teasing him, "Hey, Billy, want
some ice cream? It's chocolate, yer favorite!" Knock it off, will ya?
Uncle Ed
Yeah, to be clear, I'm making no comment on the "goodness" or "badness"
of the article it's content or anything at all to do with the article in
question, but the topic of linking to "commercial" sites.
-Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces(a)Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:42 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
> Kevin Rector (krector(a)Compco.com) [050419 02:40]:
>
> > I would think that we should be hesitant to link to any web sites
(porn
> > or otherwise) whose primary commodity is selling access or
"memberships"
> > to the website, and more liberal with links to other types of
> > industries.
>
>
> Possibly. But (1) it's an editorial judgement call and (2) the page is
> clearly tagged [[Category:Porn stars]].
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I would agree with Tony with a caveat. For a sports related link you can
often get a lot of information. For instance if you go to
www.nashvillepredators.com you can get significant information about the
team (for instance you can get the box scores for every game the team
has ever played). This information is all freely available to anyone who
wants it. However, -most- adult oriented sites simply exist to take your
money and show you porn.
I would submit that there is a different level of "commerciality"
involved between the average porn site and the average non-porn
corporate site since the primary commodity of the porn site is the porn
site itself.
I would think that we should be hesitant to link to any web sites (porn
or otherwise) whose primary commodity is selling access or "memberships"
to the website, and more liberal with links to other types of
industries.
-Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces(a)Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:30 AM
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
>
> David Gerard said:
>
> > Why remove this commercial page in particular, rather than any other
> > company page on Wikipedia? That is, this doesn't seem to be the
> > criterion commercial links are added or removed on for other
articles,
> > so this seems a novel policy.
>
> That's what I thought last time someone suggested some removals from
> another sexual subject. Different criteria may be applied to sexual
sites
> (I'm open to the possibility, though it seems far-fetched if the site
is
> otherwise encyclopedic) but if we do adopt a "no commercial links"
> approach to sexual topics we should not pretend that they're the same
> criteria that would be applied to, say, sports.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Arno M <redgum46(a)lycos.com> wrote:
> The bowdlerising project does ssem to have died a
> quiet death , all right.
>
> Examples of pages with links to porn/adult sites in
> them (all found in 20 seconds):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_James and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Carey.
>
> I fail to see any constructive purpose to them, and
> and any school that can reasonably
> be described as decent or respnsible is (not) going
> to love them.
Great. The slippery slope has become an avalanche.
Now it's not good enough to delete images which SOME
people believe are obscene, now you want to delete
links from articles ABOUT porn actresses to links
ABOUT them? This is far, far, far, beyond the pale.
RickK
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Yuo appear to have forgotten one of the key points
> of this project.
> this is to try and make information availible to
> everyone.
>
> --
> geni
Aren't those images Information?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs