[WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

Fri Apr 15 05:19:28 UTC 2005

Karl A. Krueger wrote:

>On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:34:20PM +0100, Zach Alexander wrote:
>  
>
>>Alphax wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Er, the Kate Winslet nude is only marginally "nude". If it's such a 
>>>problem, use a tabbed browser or disable images.
>>>      
>>>
>>"Marginally nude" is still nudity. One breast counts as nudity.
>>    
>>
>
>In some cultures, exposure of the female *face* in public is "nudity".
>
>  
>
As I jokingly said earlier, but yes. In some cultures, the face of a 
prophet cannot be shown.

>>You can argue that nudity should be allowed on Wikipedia, and I might
>>even agree with you, but a spade's a spade.
>>    
>>
>
>Of course nudity should be allowed on Wikipedia, just as explicit
>pictures of tomatoes should be allowed.  After all, the world contains
>both nudity and tomatoes, and Wikipedia's job is to describe the world.
>  
>
The reality of NPOV is that we can't disallow anything that isn't illegal.

>>And you can't seriously mean that disabling images is a real solution 
>>to the problem. We'd have to have a notice on the main page, e.g. 
>>"Note: Nudity may appear in any entry. If you are offended by nudity, 
>>please disable images in your browser." I don't think that would go 
>>over well.
>>    
>>
>
>We already have a [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]] linked from the main
>page.  It is at least as prominent as other quasi-legal notices posted
>on other Web sites, which purport to advise the reader of site policies
>-- for instance, privacy policies on many commercial Web sites.
>
>  
>
We could have {{images}} at the top of pages with images, saying 
something like "This page contains images, which you may or may not be 
offended by".

>>How hard would it be to add to Mediawiki the option to tag explicit 
>>images, and have an option in the preferences to not see them? A la 
>>Google SafeSearch. This might be a win-win (aside from the programming 
>>work) solution.
>>    
>>
>
>This has been brought up time and again here.
>
>Censorware tagging on Wikipedia is a little bit like "email postage" as
>an anti-spam solution -- it can't work; there are reasonably clear
>reasons it can't work; but it keeps getting proposed anyway.
>
>  
>
And yet Google SafeSearch appears to work...

>(The chief reason "email postage" can't work as an anti-spam solution is
>that spammers already steal other people's computing resources to send
>spam, e.g. using virus-infected computers, and would quite readily adapt
>to foist the "postage" cost off on innocents similarly.  Ordinary mail
>users would be stuck with the "postage" while spammers would keep
>screwing over everyone else, just as they have always done.  And all
>non-commercial mailing lists, such as this one, would be destroyed.)
>
>
>What's wrong with censorware tagging?  Where to start?  Here's the
>biggie:  tagging is incompatible with Wikipedia's existing commitments.
>
>No system of tags is compatible with Wikipedia's commitment to
>neutrality.  The dimensions, biases, and extremes of any system of tags
>are created from a particular non-neutral point of view.  Wikipedia is
>categorically forbidden from taking on such a point of view as its own.
>
>By "dimensions" I mean the types of material that are considered worth
>tagging -- e.g. nudity; violence; religion.  The reason that commercial
>censorware products have an "explicit nudity" dimension and not a
>"explicit Christianity" dimension should be tolerably obvious in the
>marketplace -- but Wikipedia does not have any business deciding for its
>readers that "nudity" is problematic and needs to be a filtering option
>but "Christianity" doesn't.
>
>By "biases" I mean the inherent bigotries that will be encoded into any
>particular category.  A system which considers female breasts to be
>"nudity" but male chests not to be is sexist by nature.  (And anyone who
>thinks that female breasts are "sexual" but male chests are not simply
>has not asked enough straight women or gay men for their opinion on the
>issue.)
>
>By "extremes" I mean the judgment as to what is the "mildest" category
>of "objectionable content" which still merits tagging -- and what
>constitutes "mild" or "extreme".  A system which tags exposure of the
>female breast, but not of the female ankle or face expresses a POV as to
>what is "acceptable" exposure.  A system which tags explicit sexual
>activity but does not consider a homosexual kiss to be "explicit sexual
>activity" expresses a bias about an issue that many people apparently
>find offensive.
>  
>
So are we prepared to sacrifice a tiny bit of NPOVness to make something 
of a higher quality? If we were truly neutral, we would prohibit 
deletion of material from articles, and the let article build up as a 
series of assertions. Readers would decide for themselves.

-- 
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis