[WikiEN-l] Don't push POV into the Wikipedia software and policies

Tue Feb 22 11:24:35 UTC 2005

Karl A. Krueger wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 09:00:33PM +0800, John Lee wrote:
>  
>
>>Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>When you speak for "the readers", nobody can hear the readers.  One can
>>>hear only you, putting on the voice of "the readers" as a phony accent,
>>>like a bad American actor pretending to Cockney.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It's things like this that tick me off, because in this case, that 
>>argument flies against common sense:
>>    
>>
>
>Not really.  You have every business to speak for yourself, and no
>business at all speaking for people who have never asked for your
>representation.  You weaken your argument when you set yourself up as
>the Speaker-for-the-Readers, and thereby imply that those who disagree
>with you are somehow opposed to "the readers" ... which, of course,
>nobody here is.  It comes across, at least to me, as a thoroughly
>arrogant and indefensible tactic of argumentation on your part.
>  
>
You separated that from the following argument. Naturally, that 
particular premise cannot stand by itself. Splitting the supporting 
statement from a premise means the premise cannot stand. That's exactly 
what you did.

>
>  
>
>>Most middle-class Asians and Americans would be offended or at least
>>shocked/distracted by a vivid photograph of a man blowjobbing himself.
>>Most middle-class Europeans and Australians wouldn't.
>>    
>>
>
>Okay.
>
>The issue here is not the Autofellatio photograph.  It's a crappy
>photograph and the encyclopedia is better off without it.  If you want
>to beat that dead horse, it has a talk page ... I think it's at 
>[[Wikipedia talk:Dead horse]] or something like that.
>
>The issue here is the proposed alteration of Wikipedia policy or
>software to favor some people's standards of making Wikipedia
>"inoffensive" or "safe".  That is, the making of structural changes to
>Wikipedia which support some people's POV and derogate or closet others
>... while not actually accomplishing the proposed (dystopian and
>impossible) goals.
>  
>
What's your problem with letting others disable the viewing of certain 
images for themselves? Is it because the proposed default would be to 
"censor" anons from viewing "possibly offensive images"? It sounds like 
_you_ are the one pushing your POV here.

Let's try summaring your stance: You don't want to alter policy or the 
software to even allow the possibility of server-based filtering of 
potentially offensive images (client-based filtering doesn't work 
because users can't know of every possibly offensive image on 
Wikipedia). Isn't that pushing your POV that everyone should be exposed 
to and offended by images such as that of a man blowjobbing himself?

>
>  
>
>>At first it seems like we're at an impasse, but consider: While those
>>who don't mind would be slightly inconvenienced, those who do mind
>>would be very heavily inconvenienced by having to disable the image in
>>their browser's settings. The latter group would also be more annoyed
>>than the former. It's a clear case to me, but I can see why extreme
>>liberals from Europe and Australia find this debate so puzzling.
>>    
>>
>
>It's really great how telepathic you are.  Not only can you read the
>minds of the vast and powerful mass of "the readers", you can also tell
>all sorts of things about the personal backgrounds of those who disagree
>with you.  That's an amazing skill.
>
>Or ... maybe you're just making stuff up.
>  
>
For some reason it's common sense to me. But since you come from a more 
liberal background, I don't blame you. But still, something has to give. 
The proposed alteration to the software means nothing to users who don't 
want the pages they view to be censored: they just disable the 
filtering. Unless they're anonymous, but as we grow to encompass more 
offensive content, it's common sense to by default have filtering on for 
anonymous readers.

Let's take a real life example: I frequently visit snopes.com, which 
occasionally has some gruesome images. Although I am not disturbed by 
them, the site makes you click on a link to view possibly offensive 
images. I don't mind this at all, and I know it makes business sense, 
because let's face it, a lot of people who suddenly find themselves 
viewing photographs of a man impaled on a fence pike would not be very 
happy about it. I accept this inconvenience as a fact of life, because I 
know it provides the least cost for most benefit.

Not having even a modicum of built-in filtering is stupid if we plan to 
include more images like the autofellatio one on Wikipedia.

>
>  
>
>>>I propose that offending people is a Virtue and not a Vice, if one does
>>>so in a manner which is simultaneously informative & educational.  It is
>>>of no use to offend gratuitously; that is, to rehash tiresome offenses
>>>which no longer teach the offended person anything.  But to be offended
>>>and to receive knowledge at the same moment, is to receive knowledge
>>>twice over.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>This is precisely the attitude I've been talking about: Editors imposing 
>>their personal beliefs on readers.
>>    
>>
>
>You don't have a rebuttal, do you?  You're spending all your time
>talking about my "attitude" and speculating (erroneously) about the
>nationality or ethnicity of those who disagree with you.  How come?
>  
>
Because most Europeans and Australians _are_ raised in a more liberal 
culture. Asians and Americans _are_ raised in a more conservative 
culture. Statistically, the odds are in favour of those strongly opposed 
to filtering are likely to hail from Europe or Australia. They could 
easily be from America or Asia, and many do, but statistically, you're 
far more likely to find people accepting of nudity in France or Canberra 
than in Maine or Singapore.

And stop beating around the bush, please. You _are_ imposing your 
beliefs on readers by refusing to allow a system which allows for 
readers to disable potentially offensive images. It doesn't even apply 
to all readers, just the ones who want it. _What the fuck is your problem?_

>
>  
>
>>We don't tell people "Nazis were evil" or "Saddam was evil" because
>>that would be imposing our personal beliefs (for those editors that
>>believe the statements). Likewise, we should not tell people "Being
>>offended is good! Really! Otherwise you'll never learn anything!"
>>    
>>
>
>OK.  Then we should also not tell people "Sex is dirty!  Pictures of
>things John Lee thinks are icky should be hidden away!  Otherwise
>Wikipedia will go out of business and we'll all die on the streets from
>acute square-bracket deficiency!"
>  
>
Strawman. Have you understood what I am arguing for or are you seriously 
believing I intend to hide away all potentially offensive images?

>Or, more seriously, we should not build your POV about "offense" into
>the Wikipedia software or policies ... especially since the recent cases
>of gratuitously offensive images have already been dealt with
>adequately, WITHOUT any such POV-pushing software or policy.
>  
>
 From #wikipedia:

Feb 07 00:40:14 <Submarine>    is the clitoris photo still on the 
article itself?
Feb 07 00:40:18 <Raul654>    Yes
Feb 07 00:40:23 <Raul654>    I made a point of mentioning that
Feb 07 00:40:35 <Raul654>    That in the article on clitoris, it took no 
fewer than 10 pages of archive discussion
Feb 07 00:40:41 <Raul654>    and numberous users being banned
Feb 07 00:40:45 <Raul654>    and an arbcom decision
Feb 07 00:40:56 <Raul654>    (I was arguing that we need him [Jimbo] to 
make some kind of official policy prounoucement)
Feb 07 00:41:08 <Raul654>    "And he was like, oh, well then maybe we do 
need one"

>Because that is what your (and others') "filtering" proposals are.  They
>are not really about making Wikipedia "safe" or "inoffensive", since
>those goals have been demonstrated to be impossible.  (As long as
>Wikipedia is an editable wiki, there is no way to provide assurances
>that it is inoffensive.  As long as it is NPOV, there is no way to
>decide _whose_ offense shall be considered significant.  And those who
>really militate against "indecency" and the like, in law and public
>policy, are offended by text just as much as by images.)
>  
>
So because it's impossible, we should never try to strive for it? 
Wikipedia can never be guaranteed to be safe for viewing, but we can 
_try_ to stem it. The proposal will not even affect users who explicitly 
declare they refuse filtering, so what's the fuss?

>Filtering proposals are thus not about making Wikipedia "safe", but
>rather about encoding someone's personal and cultural biases about
>sexuality and other so-called "offensive" topics into the software and
>policies.  They are about making censorship, rather than openness, the
>norm on Wikipedia, by mandating that things _you_ find "offensive" be
>marked up with tags and hidden away.
>  
>
Mandating? They will not be hidden away if you declare you never want 
them to be hidden away _for you_. It is the user making the decision, 
just like how we tell the user what Hitler and Saddam did and let them 
decide for themselves whether Hitler or Saddam was evil.

>Once more, the issue here is not Autofellatio.jpg.  It is the grievous
>wrong of placing a POV-pushing mechanism into the technical and policy
>support structure of Wikipedia.
>  
>
Explain to me how a system which allows users to opt out pushes a POV.

>
>  
>
>>Disagreeing with the "customer" on an issue like this would mean big
>>trouble in the business world. Just because we're trying something
>>different does not mean "Hahahaha, I'll shove some pictures of Goatse
>>in your face because you wanted to view the shock site article!"
>>    
>>
>
>Gratuitous, uninformative images and trolling are already dealt with
>quite well by Wikipedia policy and editing practices.  They are not, at
>present, a problem for Wikipedia.  You're just trying to use them as an
>excuse to push your POV into the MediaWiki software in the form of
>"offensive" image censorship.  For shame!
>
>  
>
Pray tell, what is the difference between a picture of a man stretching 
his ass or a woman peeing for the pleasure of it and the difference 
between a picture of a man fellating himself for the pleasure of it? The 
reason this problem is absent because we've had a common sense editorial 
procedure of not including screencaps of shock sites in the shock site 
article. We don't even link to the sites, just provide the unlinked URL. 
And hey, you argued it's good to be offended. Why is it good to be 
offended by the picture of a man fellating himself for fun but not to be 
offended by the picture of a man stretching his ass for fun?

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])