One argument I do not find compelling

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet...

International Writing Contest :...

Jimmy Wales

17 Apr 2005 17 Apr '05

7:51 p.m.

-----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

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCYvaDPmU5MGI9SZcRAsT1AJ9sUjSdY5pDXlVmqyhLgyZa1z1zGACfWwML uLDKAi4HmO4s3ZFPOIynBYs= =inOp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Show replies by date

Tony Sidaway

18 Apr 18 Apr

3:54 a.m.

Jimmy Wales said:

...

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

Only the ones who have a problem with images. The rest of us have much more choice if we have inlines. Put it this way: use linking and you're forever sacrificing the chance to have the image actually illustrate the article it's supposed to. Use inlining and you leave the choice with the user. If he really is bothered by certain images, he can turn them off. This seems reasonable to me as long as the images themselves are appropriate to the article in the first place. The problem lies with the user, and so the user should deal with it. Push it up the chain and change Wikipedia to suit *some* users, and you simply distribute an individual problem to lots of other individuals, and degrade the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole.

geni

4:42 a.m.

...

Yuo appear to have forgotten one of the key points of this project. this is to try and make information availible to everyone. -- geni

Tony Sidaway

6:39 a.m.

geni said: [...]

...

Push it up the chain and change Wikipedia to suit *some* users, and you simply distribute an individual problem to lots of other individuals, and degrade the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole.

Yuo appear to have forgotten one of the key points of this project. this is to try and make information availible to everyone.

I do not propose any a priori restrictions on access; unlike you I do not propose that we appease the extreme religious right of the USA and one or two less salubrious countries by applying content restrictions motivated by grundyism rather than the wish to improve the encyclopedia. The GFDL already guarantees that content availability is maximized. Those who want a bowdlerized version can adjust their browsers or produce a bowdlerized mirror.

geni

7:24 a.m.

...

And those who want a pornographic version can also ajust their browsers (by clicking yes everytime something asks to download) and produce a pornifed fork. I am not trying to appease the relgious right in the US. I am trying to appease the majority of the human population. Now I could be wrong but I belive that the majority on this planet have sex and nudity tabos. Certianly the forien language newspapers at my university are not notable for the level of nudity they carry. Fianly for pretty obvious reasons we try and avoid forks. I suggest you stop advocating one. -- geni

Tony Sidaway

7:32 a.m.

geni said:

...

And those who want a pornographic version can also ajust their browsers (by clicking yes everytime something asks to download) and produce a pornifed fork.

Indeed. But here you're simply flipping to a mischaracterization of the present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly nonsense.

...

I am not trying to appease the relgious right in the US. I am trying to appease the majority of the human population.

You wrongly accused me earlier of proposing to speak for the human race. This is what you are doing as a matter of fact. What makes you think that the majority of the human race is revolted by Kate Winslet's naked left breast? If it's such a problem, why was there not rioting in the streets at the prospect of children being exposed to this heinous sight?

...

Fianly for pretty obvious reasons we try and avoid forks. I suggest you stop advocating one.

A fork wouldn't be a bad idea in this instance, because probably people offended by the sight of a breast would have pretty firm ideas about our textual content. But a mirror would be adequate for imposing the kind of grundyism you are defending.

geni

7:44 a.m.

...

Indeed. But here you're simply flipping to a mischaracterization of the present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly nonsense.

And you are charactering what your oponets want as bowderised

...

Check out the recent history of bollywood There was a lot of opersition to the banning of fox hunting in the UK. I don't notice much in the way of rioting in the street

...

So you view all those with to keep the level of nudity in wikipedia down to a minium as stupid? -- geni

Tony Sidaway

7:57 a.m.

geni said:

...

Indeed. But here you're simply flipping to a mischaracterization of the present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly nonsense.

And you are charactering what your oponets want as bowderised

It is a fact that you propose a bowdlerization.

...

Check out the recent history of bollywood

Ms Winslet does not act in Indian movies. You're dodging the question. Why did Titanic receive a PG13 certificate in the USA, allowing children of all ages to attend the movie legally, unaccompanied by adults?

...

There was a lot of opersition to the banning of fox hunting in the UK. I don't notice much in the way of rioting in the street

There was quite a lot, actually, although the majority of the UK population either didn't care or strongly supported abolition. I think you're clutching at straws but if you seriously question this we can discuss it off-list and summarise.

...

So you view all those with to keep the level of nudity in wikipedia down to a minium as stupid?

Non-sequitur. I decry the rush to eliminate perfectly useful, encyclopedic, esthetically beautiful illustrations from Wikipedia out of what appear to me to be wildly overstated fears about the acceptability of such images. I recognise that those proposing this removal are intelligent people, and thus I hope to persuade them that they are wrong.

geni

8:28 a.m.

...

India population 1,306,313,812 USA population 295,900,500 PG13 means Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13 In the UK it recived a 12 meaning that children under 12 could not see it

...

Didn't notice a riots. Noticed a lot of protests but not much in the way of rioting.

...

Non-sequitur.

Look up the defintion of grundyism

...

I decry the rush to eliminate perfectly useful, encyclopedic, esthetically beautiful illustrations from Wikipedia out of what appear to me to be wildly overstated fears about the acceptability of such images. I recognise that those proposing this removal are intelligent people, and thus I hope to persuade them that they are wrong.

A highly crowded image that was heavily ocupied by the back of one of the actors heads was esthetically beautiful? -- geni

Tony Sidaway

8:51 a.m.

geni said:

...

India population 1,306,313,812 USA population 295,900,500

It doesn't matter how many people live in India, Ms Winslet still does not act in the Bombay talkies. For all I know she may want to, but as far as I'm aware she has not taken that career path.

...

PG13 means Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13 In the UK it recived a 12 meaning that children under 12 could not see it

And children of 13 and above could. I'm sure the brief nude scene was of far less concern than the scenes of extreme horror, which I touched on in an earlier email.

...

Look up the defintion of grundyism

Narrowmindedness, prudery. "What would Mrs Grundy say?"

...

A highly crowded image that was heavily ocupied by the back of one of the actors heads was esthetically beautiful?

Absolutely. The movie won awards, amongst others, for its direction, cinematography, art direction and set decoration. One person voting to keep in the current IfD said "The way Rose was introduced into the film was through the finding of her sketch in the safe. I thought the nude scene was an important part of the love story." That scene had to work, had to look beautiful. It is certainly one of the most memorable parts of the movie, the one that links the finding of the portrait, near the start, and the return of the jewel to the sea near the end.

geni

9:17 a.m.

...

It doesn't matter how many people live in India, Ms Winslet still does not act in the Bombay talkies. For all I know she may want to, but as far as I'm aware she has not taken that career path.

You have missed my point. India is a democracy as such there is probably some vague correrlation between it's film rateing system and what the people want. Your example appears to be outnumbered by 5 to 1

...

And children of 13 and above could. I'm sure the brief nude scene was of far less concern than the scenes of extreme horror, which I touched on in an earlier email.

Nope sub 12 doesn't allow any nudity. 12 allows brief nudity

...

Look up the defintion of grundyism

Narrowmindedness, prudery. "What would Mrs Grundy say?"

clearly we are using different dictionaries here

...

I'm not arguing with the quality of the scene I'm arguing with the quality of the particular frame we had in the article.

Ray Saintonge

1:48 p.m.

geni wrote:

...

I would not put what we do in terms of appeasement. That's being condescending to a segment. Neville Chamberlain proved that it is not always a successful strategy. A policy based on Wikilove which shows genuine respect for differing points of view would put the matter on much sounder footings. Ec

Richard Holton

7:45 a.m.

On 4/18/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:

...

geni said: [...]

Push it up the chain and change Wikipedia to suit *some* users, and you simply distribute an individual problem to lots of other individuals, and degrade the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole.

Yuo appear to have forgotten one of the key points of this project. this is to try and make information availible to everyone.

I think that anyone who has been following this series of threads is now quite familiar with Tony's view on this topic. I can't see that anything constructive is accomplished by further attempts to persuade him. Perhaps Tony is 100% correct, and is simply standing firm in the truth. Perhaps he is stubborn, and will not change his view. Or perhaps he is more interested in argument than in constructive conversation, Whether it's one of these, or something else, I suggest that continuing to engage him on this topic is pointless. Just my personal opinion. Others may find it useful to adapt a similar opinion. -Rich Holton [[W:en:User:Rholton]]

JAY JG

1:29 p.m.

...

From: Richard Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> I think that anyone who has been following this series of threads is now quite familiar with Tony's view on this topic. I can't see that anything constructive is accomplished by further attempts to persuade him. Perhaps Tony is 100% correct, and is simply standing firm in the truth. Perhaps he is stubborn, and will not change his view. Or perhaps he is more interested in argument than in constructive conversation, Whether it's one of these, or something else, I suggest that continuing to engage him on this topic is pointless. Just my personal opinion. Others may find it useful to adapt a similar opinion.

After the 50th or so repetition of Tony's view, I personally felt I was sufficiently informed on the subject. Jay.

BJörn Lindqvist

2:26 p.m.

...

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

To many people "autofellatio.jpg" is "Just An Image." It negatively affects my choice just as much as putting some other of Wikipedia's images behind a link. Therefore, why not hide ALL images behind links? "images behind a link doesn't apper to affect anyone's choice negatively at all"? Or is it "such images" that is important here? It doesn't hurt to put kate_winslets_left_tit.jpg behind a link but it hurts to put map_of_usa.jpg behind a link? Why does Wikipedia need image at all? Can't they all be linked offsite? Odds are 100 to 1 in favour that an image-link to an external site will load faster than to an internal one. -- mvh Björn

6992

days inactive

6993

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

14 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

BJörn Lindqvist
geni
JAY JG
Jimmy Wales
Ray Saintonge
Richard Holton
Tony Sidaway