[WikiEN-l] Offensive photos policy

Thu May 13 00:34:00 UTC 2004

Jimmy-
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> Exactly. If you take a look at Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion, you will
>> see that all options were offered, and the option of *showing the photo
>> inline* (instead of just a link) got the most votes of all.

> This shows me that you are right that majority vote is not the right
> way to determine the correct result.

:-) Interesting. What would you say if the voters had voted differently?

> I doubt very much that in most cases, the people who would like to
> show the photo inline are so unreasonable as to absolutely insist that
> only their own viewpoint is the correct one,

It's not about whose viewpoint is correct. It's about not implicitly and  
selectively endorsing the view that the image is offensive. If all people  
agree that the image is sufficiently offensive to hide it, then hiding it  
is not the expression of an opinion but the expression of a fact. If,  
however, only some people feel that way and others do not, then the image  
should not be hidden.

Aside from any NPOV issues with the image itself (is it manipulative?  
singled out? fake? etc.), an image is a *fact*. Nobody disputes that  
Lynndie England held a prisoner in Abu Ghraib on a leash. What some people  
claim is that this particular image in this particular article should not  
be shown inline because it is offensive to them. If we do this, then we  
*selectively* endorse this point of view. If we selectively show it, we  
endorse the opposite view. If we show all images where there is no  
consensus that they are offensive, we endorse *no* point of view.

Now you appear to argue that by doing that we make some people unhappy,  
hence we violate NPOV. I'm sure the Mother Teresa article will also make  
some people unhappy, but I'm hardly willing to make them happier by  
removing or hiding some inconvenient facts. Now who is responsible for the  
unhappiness on that article -- me, for not being willing to censor an  
article, or those who seek to hide or remove information without just  
cause? Am I obligated to seek compromise even when that implies removing  
or hiding facts which nobody disputes? I do not believe this to be the  
spirit of NPOV, and if it was your original idea, then your original idea  
was wrong.

NPOV is about *neutrality*, not about transforming Wikipedia into a real  
world version of Fahrenheit 451. NPOV is about expressing facts as facts  
and opinions as opinions. We should always strive to find solutions that  
are acceptable to all, but not at the expense of truth or neutrality. To  
me, it appears you are mixing different concepts - neutrality, WikiLove,  
consensus, compromise - into one big messy substance that you are  
spreading all over the place. That is legitimate, but that substance is  
not the essence of NPOV, it is the essence of Wikipedia.

Now how do we express WikiLove and the quest for compromise on this issue?
I'll accept that by showing the images, one could claim that we are making  
an implicit claim that such images are acceptable. That is a false claim,  
but it is an easy misunderstanding of NPOV. That's why I'm perfectly  
willing to tolerate things like disclaimers, and to add a "Hide images"  
feature to the software. I'm also willing to accept that images which are  
offensive to a substantial majority should not be shown in the intro, so  
that the disclaimer can be viewed and the user can make an informed  
decision about viewing the images. It seems to me that I am willing to  
make a lot of concessions to a point of view that is not my own.

I am not willing to accept that we should hide certain images because a  
substantial majority believes they may be offensive, as I view this as  
completely against NPOV, an implicit endorsement of the majority point of  
view.

> I think I see where we disagree now.  Your position is that we should
> show the image in all cases unless 95% of the people think it should
> not be shown, and that this should be a policy which overrides
> consensus and compromise.

Um, no, I think that when 95% of the people think it should not be shown,  
that *is* a consensus.

> That's a perfectly acceptable position to
> hold, but will you agree that it would amount to abandoning NPOV

Absolutely not. It is the essence of NPOV. N stands for Neutrality.

> With text, I feel that any form of voting is almost always inferior to
> creatively solving the problem with repeated revision of the text.

"Creative solving" often means edit wars. I'd prefer discussing the matter  
instead. But I can agree that votes should only be used if no consensus  
can be found. If other people are more willing to abandon neutrality than  
I am, I cannot stop them. However, in any discussion in which I am  
involved I will forcefully argue for respecting our policy.

> Instead, the exact meaning of consensus in a voting situation has to
> be something like Condorcet, Approval voting, Instant Runoff or the
> like.

The consensus building should happen through the discussion, not through  
the voting system. Letting a vote automatically decide the most acceptable  
option is not a good way to work towards a *neutral* solution. It would,  
however, be a good way to work towards a general policy on the matter.

Regards,

Erik