[WikiEN-l] Offensive photos policy

Thu May 13 13:47:00 UTC 2004

Erik Moeller wrote:
> 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?

Well, to be clear.  The way that I would vote is something like this,
ranking my own preferences for the articles [[clitoris]] and [[penis]]q:

1. "medical" photo/diagram on the page
2. link to "medical" photo/diagram
3. no photo at all
4. any variant of a 'porno' style photo

That's the way I would vote, and quite possibly is the way you would
vote as well.  But I do not think that our #1 choice would win,
because I think that #2 would win.  And I would be fine with that, I
think it's a perfectly acceptable compromise.

> It's not about whose viewpoint is correct. It's about not implicitly and  
> selectively endorsing the view that the image is offensive.

It's also about not implicitly and selectively endorsing the view that
the image is *not* offensive.  We can't as a matter of NPOV policy
automatically privilege either position.

> 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.

I don't agree with this.  This is not "no point of view" -- it is a
specific and highly undesirable (for most people) point of view that
says that we're going to shove images down the readers throat unless
they are so bad that 95% of the editors don't like them.

The articles are supposed to reflect consensus and compromise among
editors with many different perspectives.  If there's a case where,
say, 70% of the people think that an image should not be shown, then
how can we argue with a straight face that the article is neutral and
satisfactory to both opponents and advocates?  We can't.

That's just a complete abandonment of the principles of wiki editing
in favor of a decree that Wikipedia ought to publish pictures even
when consensus does not support it, even when there is significant
dispute.

> > 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.

But what of the case where 70% think it should not be shown, 30% think
that it should be shown?  What of the case where if we did a Condorcet
vote, "show it behind a link" would be the clear winner?  What of the
case where almost everyone indicates a preference one way or the other
(split 70%/30%) but also notes that putting it behind a link would be
an acceptable compromise?

In such a case, there would be a consensus for putting it behind a
link, and you'd still say that we should override consensus to push
your own so-called "anti-censorship" point of view.

--Jimbo