Jimbo said: I don't recognise that as a restatement. Could you explain?

At 08:29 AM 2/14/2005 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote: I don't see how putting a photo of someone performing autofellatio onto the autofellatio article is trolling. That's just about the only article I can think of where it would actually fit in. If it's a copyvio or if there are _better_ images to replace it with, that's a separate issue that's already covered pretty clearly by existing policy. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

Tony Sidaway wrote: As I made clear - the link is a *compromise* position as far as I am concerned. I think that will be true of many of those voting for that option. --sannse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/05

Tony Sidaway wrote: It was hardly a compromise on your part when you voted against it Tony. I agree it /would/ have been a compromise for both of us if you had agreed to it. --sannse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/05

Bryan Derksen wrote: *Somewhere* we have to draw a line, I think, but we just all disagree on where. For example, many would argue that adding a rotten.com image of a car crash to [[car accident]] is inappropriate, despite it being clearly on topic and arguably informative (an image gives a much different understanding of what flying through a windshield really is like as opposed to a text description). Or, to take everyone's favorite example, we don't have an image of the goatse.cx man on [[shock site]], despite it being eminently on topic there---and arguably this is one place where a picture really is worth a thousand words in terms of explaining "what's this goatse thing and why is it a big deal?" My personal preference would be to keep most "squickish" images as links. When I'm browsing the encyclopedia, I don't necessarily want to see, without purposely clicking on "show me this image", images of: an anus on [[anus]]; autofellatio on [[autofellatio]]; goatse on [[shock site]]; a clitoris on [[clitoris]]; a car crash on [[car accident]]; a cut-open chest on [[heart surgery]]; and so on. None of those images particularly offend me (no, not even goatse... as a long-time internet denizen it barely even surprises me anymore), but they're eye-catching enough to be distracting from the text. -Mark

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 06:27:48PM -0000, Tony Sidaway wrote: I haven't seen rotten.com's collection of car-crash pictures, but I've read many of their "Rotten Library" articles, most of which seem to be quite good research on unusual and icky subjects (from trepanation to Al Qaida, from SpongeBob SquarePants to the Gunpowder Plot). They do tend to have a lot of images, though I suspect many of them are a little bit copyright-infringe-ish around the edges. Having pictures of an actual car crash would have other problems, though -- for one, permission from the persons involved in the crash. We don't want to infringe upon the privacy of them or their heirs. -- Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote: Jimbo, can you explain why you think a picture of a man performing autofellatio in an article about autofellatio is pornographic? Christiaan